the reason for the 73mm grom being used by the BMP-1 was because it is supposed to cover for the minimum range of the ATGM (which at the time was like 400-500 meters), similar to how direct fire recoilless rifles and antitank guns are paired with ATGMs in Soviet anti tank batteries. BMP-2 switched to the autocannon as their newer models of ATGMs does not have as much of a minimum range problem as the Malyutka. The BMP-3 is a special case because the 100mm cannon is primarily supposed to function as a gun launched ATGM system (gun launched ATGMs was a solution to the NBC protection problem, since both the BMP-1 and BMP-2 have issues and limitations with reloading without compromising the NBC protection), the cannon being able to fire HE shells was a bit of an afterthought.
Both became more of a myth than the actual issues.. 73mm with HE and frag. was perceived as a cannon which could ruin buildings or MG nests. Stop a WWII-era tank or mobility-kill a more modern tank. Especially from the side. High speed and manoeuvrability, low silhouette and not very loud vehicle overall made it possible. Malutka became a later solution to the heavy tank problem. The BMP2 used 30mm because there was no doctrine according to which 73 mm had a role to play. Reloading with autoloader was a failed design and hand reloading took some time. Also, fumes from the cannon stayed in the vehicle. Both Sagger and Grom were problematic. 30mm was good enough for every situation and ammo was carried in much bigger numbers. The high fire rate and the possibility of making the following shot immediately kinda won 30mm a place in BMP2.
The idea behind the 30mm was to be able to suppress the growing number of NATO ATGW carriers, particularly those 2nd generation systems like TOW, HOT and MILAN, which the 73mm could not do. BMP-2 also benefitted from being armed with similar 2nd gen ATGW which were not so limited as Malyutka, negating the rationale for the 73mm.
Just a quick note, the BTR-50 generally utilized a 12.7mm machine gun in the form of the DShKM on its pintle mounts generally speaking, or the 7.62mm SGM, which was the machine gun succeeded by the PKM. The 14.5mm KPV machine gun, which was found in the turret of subsequent BTR variants (60 through to 80) were only mounted on the improved PA variant of the BTR-50, as well as on an anti-air mount on the BTR-50P for an SPAA role. Other than that, great video and just a small nitpick!
The BMP-1 set up the design principles of an IFV in layout and mission capabilities. NBC, can swim, has a gun powerful enough to take out other light vehicles/ fortifications, has anti-tank capability, can take hits from other light vehicles up to autocannon fire fights with the infantry as infantry support rather than drop off and go and turret is center mounted rather than off to some side.
A funny anecdote, in post soviet militaries, and even during afghan wars era BMP1 was called as Bratskaya Mogila Pehoty which means, infantry's mass grave. Some dark humor to BMP's survivability.
Formidable viedeo can`t wait for more. Oh and thx for enlightening me as german about the truley darkest chapter of our history ... the time we nearly bought french weapons ;)
There is a flaw in an argument that since Marder is an AFV and it replaced HS 30, this makes HS 30 an IFV. What did HS 30 replace? Basically it replaced half-tracks in Panzergrenadier formations. In WW II, Half-Tracks would often stay and support advancing troops, they were not "battle-taxis", like US equivalents. But nobody in the right mind would call them IFVs either. Simple fact of slapping the autocannon on a transport vehicle is not enough. Besides, as far as its ability to transport infantry is concerned - HS 30 is massively lacking, being developed from basically a recon tank - transport capability reeks of an afterthought. The shtick of a proper IFV is not only the ability to transport infantry and help it against another infantry. It is the mix of roles - basically IFV is a toolbox meant to help dismounts deal with anything that might pose a challenge - that includes fortified positions and proper tanks. This is where BMP comes in as a first proper IFV - 73mm gun could fire HE against soft targets but also had HEAT ammunition capable of threatening any tank at the time it entered production. Malutka ATGM also gave it pretty solid AT capability against armoured targets at longer distances. It basically covered all the bases except aerial targets.
I would also add that the BMP is a member of the squad as far as the Soviets were concerned. It wasn’t just hanging around. It was working directly with the squad and taking orders from the commander, who dismounts along with the infantry
all the other APC/IFV with 20 mikes were also supposed to help their dismounts in direct combat by "splashing" threats with 20mm fire, both (lightly) armoured and not the only real new thing for the BMP-1 was the ATGM intergration for the type, and in general the large adoption of the weapon, ATGM carrier vics did exist in other armies, but as dedicated platforms without dismounts (or at least not riflemen dismounts) nor a secondary weapon of consequence the closest at the time would have been the Spz 12-3 Lang of anti tank rifle teams who could mount the rifle between the two roof hatches, but it was a RR, thus has limited firepower and range plus the team had to service the gun hatches open, so protection was not great
Just discovered this channel, but this is very good video, I like the minimalistic style of presentation and as an avid Wargamer it is great source to learn about things I push around on the table.
We made a test drive video about that (10:52) Austrian Saurer 4K 4FA vehicle few years ago. My opinion is that it's some kind of intermediate between tracked APC and IFV. 4K 4FA is designed in Western standards, it was comfortable and easy to drive compared to Soviet vehicles we have tested. That's why it is popular surplus vehicle in civilian markerts, it is a quite popular tourist entertaining vehicle.
For all the faults of the Malyutka, at least it could be reloaded according to the manual of arms! The Grom grenade-pooter was rigged up to an autoloader that reliably jammed, and frequently tried to shove the gunner's arm into the breech if he wore sleeves! In many Warsaw Pact-licensed copies, the autoloader was omitted. Soviet troops in Afghanistan often had the loaders removed at motor pool level.
While I agree with you, I think it's hard not to appreciate how unique a lot of our equipment is. Autocannons, recoiless rifles, turretless tanks, double delta wings, hell even our M90 camo are all really unique solutions to problems where most countries just decided to play it safe and copy somebody else, so it's natural that people would be excited about our stuff. Greetings from Östergötland!
Hey man, Nice video as usual, keep it up! I was about to write and essay, but didn't had to because you summarized it in your conclusion. The BMP series was in my opinion a revolution on the IFV scene while not being the creator of it :) You said speaking french would have help you quite a bit here; hit me up if you want some help for some translation, I'd be glad to help ! :DD
Yup. The revolutionary aspect of the BMP was the standard, credible, antitank capability added to an IFV that transported a short rifle squad and was designed to fight through the enemy position *or* stand off and deliver supporting fire.
FYI, the main reason for chosing the 40mm gun on the CV90 was that the AP round could penetrate the T-72 in the side and we thought we would see a lot of those in a potential war
And Sweden made the 40mm gun (probably the deciding factor). Sweden just ordered a replacement batch of CV9035 with 35mm guns,... because Bofors no longer make the 40mm gun.
@@MFitz12 Not correct, the reason for choosing the 35mm gun was that the Mk III version is built for it, there has been no Mk3s built with the 40mm so if they wanted that gun they would have to “redraw” the turret. It is however also true that the 35mm has evolved and basically has the same effect and capabilities that the 40mm has, which it didn’t have 10-20 years ago and it also allows the vehicle to carry more rounds, but the main reason was the first one and they wanted the vehicles built asap
You know, all these supposed IFV forerunners are all armed with 20mm autocannon, the thing most of them are also specifically resistant against. Of all of these, only the BMP-1 can be credibly expected to engage these other infantry carriers at any sort of range at least on paper.
Resistant to 20mm can mean many things. What it usually means is full-bore AP-T and often from a lower energy 20mm round like 20x110 or 20x103. APDS from a 20x139 is a very different animal. We saw the same trick of marketing in the 1980's with vehicles frequently marketed as "resistant to 23mm" with the hope the customer would not realize 23mm AP is a fairly poor round and exceeded by 14.5mm in many circumstances. But at any rate, the 20mm on an APC/IFV in the 1960's was much more valued for its ability to lob HE than punching small holes in BTR's. Note many of these vehicles had only the 20mm and no machine gun. Many could only feed one ammo type at a time and that was usually HE.
@@EdyAlbertoMSGT3I don’t think it’s that much of a problem in the open fields of Europe, the low velocity isn’t that much of an issue when most of NATO’s tanks at the time were pretty slow by modern day or even late Cold War standards. The M48, M60, Centurion, Chieftain and some other tanks were quite slow and would made the targeting easier for conscripts. But I supposed it isn’t good enough and was still too slow and sluggish, hence why they switched to Konkur ATGM.
Actually it would be the second time in 20 years that one of Germany's primary arms suppliers was France, and though the acquisition process may not have been free of corruption, it was noticeably free of any armored thrusts through the Low Countries. Maybe not revolutionary but is progress nonetheless.
Being an 1970's Australian Infantryman training to fight Indonesia I'm surprised to be studying Soviet/Russian A.F.V.'s again. What I did learn in the meantime is that we are the Bad Guys. Peace.
@@freedmen123 I think he means western governments in general. And Australian soldiers certainly had a better reputation in the Vietnam war than US troops.
Good video and you do great work. But I disagree on your point here. The BMP isn’t just a vehicle to take infantry to the battle or even support them necessarily. It functions as a member of the squad itself. Hence why the commander hops out during dismount. The BMP is a part of the squad through and through. The crews and dismounts even train together and are part of the same chain of command. Now I’m not very knowledge about the Germans first “IFV” but it doesn’t seem to be the same doctrine.
idk for the swedes or austrians, but for the french AMX-VCI and german Spz 12-3 Lang, they were part of the rifle platoon the complements were as such for one vehicle: Spz 12-3 Lang: 1 farer (driver) 1 kannoniere (gunner) 1 halbtuppenfürer (half-troop leader) 4 panzergrenadiere (riflemen) AMX-VCI: 1 conducteur (driver) 1 radio-canonnier (radio-gunner) 1 chef d'escouade (sl) 1 sous officier adjoint (2ic, usually commands the squad heavy weapons) 1 tireur mitrailleuse (machine gunner) 1 tireur lance-roquettes (rocket gunner) 2 assistants-tireurs (assistant-gunners, one for the machine gun ,the other for the rocket launcher) 6 voltigeurs (riflemen, 3 with SMGs, 3 with rifles) 1 membre section de commandement (one of the members of the section command section mounted in each vehicle, either the lt, his 2ic or the radio bearer) in each case the dismount leader was the overall leader for the vehicle-dismounts couple, with the gunner assuming vehicle leader role once the dismounts are out, in both cases the vehicle was equipped with a dedicated commander seat (right behind the driver in the Spz, right of the turret in the VCI) and they were supposed to provide supporting fire for the platoon and they of course did their evolutions together
The Sagger couldn't effectively engage targets closer than 500m. The 73mm cannon provided anti-tank abilities within this dead space. SACLOS missiles made the the 73nm cannon obsolete. The auto cannon was added to fight light vehicles and infantry. The BMP-3's 100mm gun was built to throw large HE shells and as its ATGM launcher.
I think it would have been a nice touch to mention that the BTR-50 and BMP-1 were amphibious, which the Western vehicles were not (as far as I know) which gave them an operational advantage in certain scenarios.
AMX-10P being the big exception for IFVs. The bradley can be made amphibious via the use of a curtain. Since the BTR-50 is more of an APC, well there is the TPz Fuchs and the m113 for example who are fully amphibous. But its fair to say that these all came later in the 60s.
The claimed amphibious capability of Soviet AFVs is quite exaggerated. I would more accurately say that they are capable of being amphibious with the right preparations. In reality for the vehicle to be amphibious requires extensive additional maintenance work to be done. Most of the time, the basic maintenance is insufficient for the BMP-1 to be able to cross large bodies of deep water.
@@killer3000ad True. But this is true to a lot of eastern block vehicles due to the fact that they were sold on masse to countries which had very poor maintenance standards. Fx. the Iraqis in the Gulf War were going up against The Coalition Forces with vehicles which had severely worn guns and vehicles that were beeing held together with just spit and elbow grease. - They would have lost regardless, but doe to the poor maintenance and planning they lost even more severely.
Slapping a 20mm aircraft gun on a box rated for rifle fire doesn’t make an IFV. You can make an argument for the HS.30 being the first true IFV but even then it wasn’t NBC rated, dismounting was extremely awkward and it was relatively low volume and very niche vehicle. The BMP-1 is the first IFV because it brought all the concepts together plus its own additions - the insistence on the ability to be capable of engaging and destroying every other armored vehicle in the battlefield. The BMP is a revolution because that 73mm was for the time an extremely lethal weapon against tanks, capable of killing most NATO armor frontally. What it couldn’t kill with the 73, it could with the ATGM. It had major issues but as a mass produced vehicle capable of transporting infantry and posing a threat to everything on the battlefield, it was an IFV by both doctrine and design.
Grom was such a piece of shit gun it could hardly hit stationary tank sized object at 500 meters much less penetrate such target, that is if crew itself didn't die from all the toxic fumes it left in fighting compartment after each shot. That gun was a mistake
The BMP is also low volume and awkward for the dismounts. It’s rare to see it used with the true IFV mounted infantry doctrine, and instead the dismounts sit on top and jump off on contact. That’s a pro of the Western “armoured box” concept, it actually has enough capacity that soldiers bother to use its armour.
A big gun does not an ifv make. its mostly about doctrine and the vehicle basically being an extra, be it chunky, squadmate that provides cover and fire support for the infantry. The bmp was as far as im aware the first vehicle that was specifically designed with this doctrine in mind and mass produced, hence why it is qouted as the first ifv. Its not just an apc with a gun slapped on
The pronunciation at 14:50 while off, especially towards the end is still a good try! Definitely better than how most people would have pronounced it :D
I hardly think the HS.30 counts. It was shit in a lot of ways, explaining its short service life and inferior to BMP-1 in almost every respect. HS.30 fit German doctrine carried over from WWII of Panzer grenadier's predominantly fighting from their vehicles. This is just as well since mounting/dismounting from the HS.30 was,..._less than ideal_ . To fight from the vehicle however, the troops had to expose themselves out the hatches. The 20mm HS-820 cannon was really just _the German fifty_ and the German's employed them much like the American's employed the Ma Deuce. Same with the Austrians and the Swede's. Note the lack of a coax MG. Interestingly German PzGr Brigades never fully re-equipped with HS.30 and much like the WW2 situation where only one or maybe 2 battalions in a regiment had the armored halftrack, usually only one battalion in the 1960's had HS.30, a second had M113 and a third rode in trucks. AMX-VCI was just better, if cramped. It was IIRC expensive though. All French armor seems designed for legless Pigmies. The 20mm turrets did not get retrofitted to some (by no means all) until the mid-late 70's IIRC (never seen a photo of one prior to that) so usually had a 7.5mm MG before that. NOT an IFV. _But_ there were firing ports for the soldiers to fire mounted and under cover,... so they were half-way there. Which is nice. Those 20mm turrets were later removed and put on 4x4 VAB's to serve as escorts for Roland SAM's. Those VAB's are still in service. What made the BMP-1 such a thing was it being designed to _fight in close cooperation with tanks on a nuclear battlefield_ - closed up. Nobody else was doing that at the time, so yeah it was novel. The 73mm Grom gun was not a "misstep", it was a close-range compliment to the Malyutka ATGW. Where the 20mm guns in use on some western vehicles were really just big shell firing heavy machine guns (note the lack of a coax rifle caliber MG on most early applications), the 73mm was a dedicated anti-armor weapon designed to cover the substantial minimum range or "dead zone" of the Malyutka missile. The 7.62mm coax was there for suppressing infantry, just like it had been on earlier machines. The BMP-2 adopted a 30mm auto cannon to meet the evolving threat and a different requirement. It was not an anti-tank weapon like Grom but intended to suppress the rapidly growing number of NATO ATGW platforms carrying new weapons like TOW, HOT and Milan. These could be launched from well outside the effective range of Grom or 7.62mm machine guns. Punching little holes in M113's and Marder's was a secondary concern. The change to the 30mm was made possible by BMP-2 moving on to more advanced ATGW options than the 1st generation Malyutka, so the minimum range issue was no longer an issue and Grom made redundant. BMP-3 adopted a 100mm low-pressure gun as a means of firing ATGW from under armor. On BMP-1/2 the gunner had to open the hatch and expose himself to reload the missile launcher, with potentially fatal consequences, especially on a nuclear battlefield. The 100mm missile firing gun allowed ATGW to be fired all day long without anyone getting out of their chairs. Firing conventional HE was a bonus, not a necessity. The roles of the 30mm and 7.62mm coax remain as before, so they are kept. On a side note: Until the advent of the current generation of fire-and-forget ATGW like Javelin and Spike, I personally was never a fan of ATGW on IFV's.
you are making a key mistake here - the requirement for the BMP1 was not to be armed to combat other lightly armored vehicles, only main battle tanks. hence the armament in the form of Pkt plus ATGM Malyutka, the 2A28 Grom cannon was added to the armament to solve the problem of fighting tanks at a distance below the minimum firing distance of the Malyutka ATGM, i.e. 500 m. and Dalí, so far we classify as an IFV a vehicle armed with a cannon and an ATGM capable of transporting infantry. The HS30 did not have the ability to combat main battle tanks. apart from the fact that the HS30s were not a very successful design.
Neat, I don't know that about swedish vehicles. The BMP-1 has such a strange history now days too. Iconic in many ways good and bad. It needs to be fully retired after russo-ukraine war. I've seen to many of the things end up a smoking crater from a cook off.
@@Cold_Warmasterwell, reminds me of one joke: Time traveller 1 "Hurray, time machine worked." TT 2 "Okay, so when we are?" TT 1 "Ehhh... Oh, zmechol (mechanised infantryman), I'll ask." "Hey, in what vehicle you serve?" Zmechol "BMP-1" TT 1 "For all we know, we might be in the future"
Good firepower with the tradeoff of dangerous ammo layout is a hallmark of Soviet designs at this point. Bmp-3s with attached ERA appear to be the bare minimum required to give Russian Ifvs some well needed survivability. Maybe this war will accelerate Russias phasing out of relic BMPs and develop their Kurganets ifvs further.
>It needs to be fully retired after russo-ukraine war. I've seen to many of the things end up a smoking crater from a cook off. I was literally reading an article 2 days ago where the Ukrainians were calling M1 Abrams deathtraps with horrendous crew survivability War is war
9:20 "thus must be an IFV" That's totally broken logic. Just because something specifically replaces another does not make them the same thing, that's not how it works in military. That might make SENSE, and we can't have THAT in any military now can we? "PBV 301/PBV 302" As a Swede, as a Swede who has been inside both the 301 and 302 as well as given the chance to play with the 20mm in the 301, i can FIRMLY and without the tiniest hint of doubt tell you that no, the PBVs were purely 100% nothing but APCs, NOT IFVs in any way, shape or form. And no, they're "slightly resistant" against heavier than .50 from the front, but even a 14.5 CAN penetrate them from the front, just not every shot or without losing a lot of energy first. "40mm Bofors" The CV90 gun was chosen because it allowed the use of lots of advanced variable timing fuzing as well as proximity fuzing and other configurable settings. Also, 40mm was found to be the smallest gun you could have that could reliably take out infantry with shrapnel, as well as be used with proximity fuzing against aircraft and helicopters. While it's AP shot at the time of design was capable of penetrating the side armor of ALL tanks then in use or known to being designed. "IFVs before the Soviets" Sorry, but you're completely wrong. You're basically just assuming that anything with more than minimal armor and a 20mm gun is an IFV. Despite obviously not which is very clear in regards to the Swedish APCs(which i de facto KNOW was absolutely NEVER considered anything other than an APC), and at least vaguely clear for the other vehicles, as they were designed as APCs and used as APCs, not IFVs. "73mm low velocity" The original BMP cannon is effectively a rocket gun rather than a cannon. And it wasn't considered so much a misstep, but rather it was too inefficient to do its job. The problem was that 73mm was supposed to be used against everything in between what the ATGM and the MG could effectively engage, but it was fairly soon found that there were far too many targets that needed automatic fire, more powerful than the MG could provide. Essentially they would have needed to replace the coaxial with a 14.5mm to work more properly and at that point, an actual autocannon was clearly the better alternative. Also, while the 73mm could penetrate some quite thick regular steel armor, 350mm, once tanks started using composites and advanced composites, the 73mm lost its ability to destroy enemy tanks from the front, basically making one of its major advantages over autocannons completely irrelevant and defunct. . You are blatantly wrong about classifying those earlier vehicles as IFVs. Just as the PBV-301 wasn't an IFV just because it got a little bit of extra armor and a 20mm cannon, the same goes for the rest. One of the reasons being that the 20mm cannon of the time simply wasn't a credible threat to tanks. The 20mm cannons used on those vehicles, just as on the PBV-301, was there 1st to give airdefence. Otherwise it would still have been an MG or a HMG(again, i KNOW this, they were originally meant to have a tiny turret with a MG, but it got "upgraded" to the 20mm, which caused the PBV-301 to be overweight from the start, and its intended use as airdefence, it was found to be entirely insufficient due to low rate of fire and too slowmoving aim). Because not long after WWII, the only machinegun still considered even remotely relevant against aircraft were the 14.5mm ones. And even those were treated more like "if we have enough of them, some shots are bound to hit something fragile" than something truly effective. Look at all modern IFVs. The smallest cannon used is the 25mm of the Bradley. And the Bradley gun is commonly considered a mistake and making it undergunned, which is why it has the chemical warfare DU-ammunition. There's a reason why already the Soviet union stopped using their DU-ammunition. The results of USAs use of it is clearly shown in Iraq and ex-Yugoslavia where literally millions have become sick from the toxicity of uranium dust. All other IFVs have cannons that are at least minimally capable of being THREATS to tanks from the side and rear. The CV90 drops the ATGM but instead has a bigger gun. Everyone else focuses mostly around 30-35mm cannons. OR, if they have a lighter cannon, they have ATGMs. There's a rare few exceptions, but that's not because of design choice but because buyers ended up skipping on ATGMs because they were retroactively found too expensive, like the Dutch YPR-765 which has merely a 25mm cannon. At the other end of the spectra we have IFVs with fullpowered 60mm cannons or 40mm cannons AND ATGMs. Point being, an IFV must be a credible threat to ANYTHING on the battlefield, even if only from the side and rear. APCs with a 20mm cannon just is NOT.
Soviets/Russians still produce DU ammo for tanks. And as far as I know, they have a real skill issue making AP autocannon ammo - while western IFVs shoot APDS designed in 2000s, Russians get full bore AP designed in 70s, even way after they developed proper APDS. As for DU being bad for lungs - any powderised heavy metal is bad for the lungs, which will kill you way faster than local increase in radiation
@@Jfk2Mr "Soviets/Russians still produce DU ammo for tanks." They do not USE it. And to my knowledge, there is no Russian production of DU ammo. "And as far as I know" Ah, so you're just a useless propaganda shill then. Because that was one of the most pathetic attempts at blackpainting a country that i've seen in a long time. Let me roughly quote a British author of books about autocannons, "if you want anything quality done today for autocannons or their ammo, you go to Russia". "As for DU being bad for lungs - any powderised heavy metal is bad for the lungs, which will kill you way faster than local increase in radiation" Who said anything about radiation? As i specifically stated, the problem with DU that is causing every place in Yugoslavia and Iraq where it was used, to have hundreds of times greater than average medical problems, is TOXICITY. Uranium is a TOXIN, it is TOXIC. HOWEVER, Serbia has long since proven beyond any shadow of doubt that DU is also the cause of the EXTREMELY high rates of cancer in those locations. Serbia is literally at the point where they have considered taking their evidence to a court of law in a CIVIL SUIT against USA. Because they know they would never have any chance to get a fair treatment in a criminal trial, but they might manage in a civil suit. That's how massive their accumulated evidence is. AND, there's people in Iraq trying to work on putting together a case the same way. And Russia started officially considering the use of DU as chemical warfare sometime 2019 or 2020.
Great reply, although what mostly set apart the BMP from these other vehicles was its armament; specifically the ATGM. Your argument is very sound and I agree that the introduction of ATGM to these vehicles was so revolutionary you could say it was what birthed the very concept of the IFV itself.
at least the HS30 and the VCI were also IFV simply because they were meant to support their dismounts in combat with the 20mm, be it light armour, soft targets or low-flying aircraft (rotor wing or otherwise) they were part of the rifle platoon just like the BMP-1 is, they just lacked in the anti armour firepower because of a difference of how the countries thought their (mechanised) infantry should fight tanks) but for the designed role and threats of the time, the 20mm was considered sufficient (reminder they showed up before the BMP-1) as the API-T they fired (Spz & VCI, but also the PBV 302) was still able to pierce 37mm @500m /flat and 40mm @100m /30° (from vertical) which would have been sufficient against the Soviet APCs of the time and infantry earthworks by comparison, the 3BUR6 AP-T used in soviet/russian 30mm does 22mm /60° @300 (hard to find corresponding data, but WT, [i know, grain of salt, yadda, yadda] gives 53mm /flat @500m, so just 13mm better than the 20mm hispano) and DU ammo isn't chemical warfare, like sure they cause issues if you breathe the dust, but same is for the tungsten used in non DU AP rounds, and radiation is a non issue as DU is less radioactive than natural uranium (hence the "depleted" part) Russia does still manufacture DU cored projectiles for their 125mm tank guns in the 3BM59 "Svinets" and 3BM69 "Vacuum" apfsds, they just don't use it as like with 3BM32 "Vant", there are some réticences at using DU outside of a major war (about the health issues, but like i mention above, tungsten is hardly any better) and they still have huge reserves of 3BM42 "Mango" to go through, plus those rounds require a gun/loader setup that is either rare, or unavailable (Svinets can only be used in T-72/90 with upgraded carousels, Vacuum can only be used in the 2A82 mounted in T-14 Armata)
The Pbv 302s 20mm gun was originally made for aircraft aswell just like its predecessor. The cannon is a refurbished gun from old J29 Tunnan (the Barrel) but also british imports Venom and Vampire. Why waste a good 20mm
To me the "only" big advancement the BMP made was the ATGM. The ability to be amphibious is not really a big advantage in my opinion. Its nice to have, but ultimately very situational. And if these things cant sail across the Dnipro, they probably whouldnt have made it over the Rhine. And like it was explained in the video, the auto-cannon and armour werent really revolutionary. And i also wouldnt call the big, low velocity much of an "advancement" because those had already been used on APCs or similar vehicles in WW2. For example the whacky Sdkfz 251 variants.
It was revolutionary at the time but it’s useless now. It’s under armored and outgunned in todays battlefield even Russia doesn’t use the bmp1 anymore, they have invested heavily into the bmp3 which is a totally unique vehicle apart from the bmp1
@@jesseterrell2109 They only had about 600 -3's at the start and have lost about half of them, so look again. The Russians are even taking the Grom's out of their damaged -1's and mounting them on Vasilek carriages.
@@MFitz12 um no. The Russian army has received 3 batch’s of bmp3s just this year. On the other hand the AFU has lost about 83 Bradley’s either destroyed or damaged to the point of having to be sent out of Ukraine it to mention most of the Leo 2s and 13 Abrams now.
the reason for the 73mm grom being used by the BMP-1 was because it is supposed to cover for the minimum range of the ATGM (which at the time was like 400-500 meters), similar to how direct fire recoilless rifles and antitank guns are paired with ATGMs in Soviet anti tank batteries. BMP-2 switched to the autocannon as their newer models of ATGMs does not have as much of a minimum range problem as the Malyutka. The BMP-3 is a special case because the 100mm cannon is primarily supposed to function as a gun launched ATGM system (gun launched ATGMs was a solution to the NBC protection problem, since both the BMP-1 and BMP-2 have issues and limitations with reloading without compromising the NBC protection), the cannon being able to fire HE shells was a bit of an afterthought.
BMP2 switched to 2a42 because Afghan experience of having not enogh anti infantry firepower and shooting high up
Both became more of a myth than the actual issues.. 73mm with HE and frag. was perceived as a cannon which could ruin buildings or MG nests. Stop a WWII-era tank or mobility-kill a more modern tank. Especially from the side. High speed and manoeuvrability, low silhouette and not very loud vehicle overall made it possible.
Malutka became a later solution to the heavy tank problem. The BMP2 used 30mm because there was no doctrine according to which 73 mm had a role to play. Reloading with autoloader was a failed design and hand reloading took some time. Also, fumes from the cannon stayed in the vehicle. Both Sagger and Grom were problematic.
30mm was good enough for every situation and ammo was carried in much bigger numbers. The high fire rate and the possibility of making the following shot immediately kinda won 30mm a place in BMP2.
The idea behind the 30mm was to be able to suppress the growing number of NATO ATGW carriers, particularly those 2nd generation systems like TOW, HOT and MILAN, which the 73mm could not do. BMP-2 also benefitted from being armed with similar 2nd gen ATGW which were not so limited as Malyutka, negating the rationale for the 73mm.
Great content man . If you ever need help with translation from Russian/Ukrainian or searching done , i can help with that.
I may have to take you up on that.
Same, if you need any help with french translation, i'm french and i sure can help you.
in the off chance you ever need help translating some dutch ,let me know!
Great vid!
Человечество в этой ветке комментариев выглядит приятно.
@@Cold_Warmaster where can we message each other?
Just a quick note, the BTR-50 generally utilized a 12.7mm machine gun in the form of the DShKM on its pintle mounts generally speaking, or the 7.62mm SGM, which was the machine gun succeeded by the PKM. The 14.5mm KPV machine gun, which was found in the turret of subsequent BTR variants (60 through to 80) were only mounted on the improved PA variant of the BTR-50, as well as on an anti-air mount on the BTR-50P for an SPAA role. Other than that, great video and just a small nitpick!
The BMP-1 set up the design principles of an IFV in layout and mission capabilities. NBC, can swim, has a gun powerful enough to take out other light vehicles/ fortifications, has anti-tank capability, can take hits from other light vehicles up to autocannon fire fights with the infantry as infantry support rather than drop off and go and turret is center mounted rather than off to some side.
A funny anecdote, in post soviet militaries, and even during afghan wars era BMP1 was called as Bratskaya Mogila Pehoty which means, infantry's mass grave. Some dark humor to BMP's survivability.
Same for the m113
@@robbob9273 no
Cope
@@robbob9273 ?
Love all your vids, keep going king
can't wait for more! glad i caught this so early!
The BMP revolution and its consequences were a disaster for the AFV race
As a german, the humility of your pronounciation attempts pleases me, you have my blessings
Formidable viedeo can`t wait for more. Oh and thx for enlightening me as german about the truley darkest chapter of our history ... the time we nearly bought french weapons ;)
According to some UN standards I saw time ago, every vehicle that transports a infantry squad and is armed with a armament of 20mm or above is a IFV.
You can see it that way, you can also do it by tactics. APC battle taxi vs IFV actually fighting support.
There is a flaw in an argument that since Marder is an AFV and it replaced HS 30, this makes HS 30 an IFV.
What did HS 30 replace? Basically it replaced half-tracks in Panzergrenadier formations.
In WW II, Half-Tracks would often stay and support advancing troops, they were not "battle-taxis", like US equivalents. But nobody in the right mind would call them IFVs either.
Simple fact of slapping the autocannon on a transport vehicle is not enough.
Besides, as far as its ability to transport infantry is concerned - HS 30 is massively lacking, being developed from basically a recon tank - transport capability reeks of an afterthought.
The shtick of a proper IFV is not only the ability to transport infantry and help it against another infantry. It is the mix of roles - basically IFV is a toolbox meant to help dismounts deal with anything that might pose a challenge - that includes fortified positions and proper tanks.
This is where BMP comes in as a first proper IFV - 73mm gun could fire HE against soft targets but also had HEAT ammunition capable of threatening any tank at the time it entered production. Malutka ATGM also gave it pretty solid AT capability against armoured targets at longer distances. It basically covered all the bases except aerial targets.
I would also add that the BMP is a member of the squad as far as the Soviets were concerned. It wasn’t just hanging around. It was working directly with the squad and taking orders from the commander, who dismounts along with the infantry
all the other APC/IFV with 20 mikes were also supposed to help their dismounts in direct combat by "splashing" threats with 20mm fire, both (lightly) armoured and not
the only real new thing for the BMP-1 was the ATGM intergration for the type, and in general the large adoption of the weapon, ATGM carrier vics did exist in other armies, but as dedicated platforms without dismounts (or at least not riflemen dismounts) nor a secondary weapon of consequence
the closest at the time would have been the Spz 12-3 Lang of anti tank rifle teams who could mount the rifle between the two roof hatches, but it was a RR, thus has limited firepower and range plus the team had to service the gun hatches open, so protection was not great
Easiest way I think of what an IFV is, is a light tank that can carry troops..
@@quentintin1yeah, the recoilless being an equivalent to what the BMP had.
HS 30 was the first IFV in my book. It is a failed design but it had the exact same role.
Just discovered this channel, but this is very good video, I like the minimalistic style of presentation and as an avid Wargamer it is great source to learn about things I push around on the table.
@ 5:05, the dude in the top photo is about to perform an unscripted dismount😂
We made a test drive video about that (10:52) Austrian Saurer 4K 4FA vehicle few years ago. My opinion is that it's some kind of intermediate between tracked APC and IFV.
4K 4FA is designed in Western standards, it was comfortable and easy to drive compared to Soviet vehicles we have tested. That's why it is popular surplus vehicle in civilian markerts, it is a quite popular tourist entertaining vehicle.
Loved your stuff so far. Keep up the great work
Alot of thought put into the video, really enjoy your content.
For all the faults of the Malyutka, at least it could be reloaded according to the manual of arms! The Grom grenade-pooter was rigged up to an autoloader that reliably jammed, and frequently tried to shove the gunner's arm into the breech if he wore sleeves! In many Warsaw Pact-licensed copies, the autoloader was omitted. Soviet troops in Afghanistan often had the loaders removed at motor pool level.
As a Swede I am in the "too much love" camp. There's a reason the word abrovinsch/"fullösning" lit. "ugly solution" exists in our language.
While I agree with you, I think it's hard not to appreciate how unique a lot of our equipment is. Autocannons, recoiless rifles, turretless tanks, double delta wings, hell even our M90 camo are all really unique solutions to problems where most countries just decided to play it safe and copy somebody else, so it's natural that people would be excited about our stuff.
Greetings from Östergötland!
Hey man,
Nice video as usual, keep it up! I was about to write and essay, but didn't had to because you summarized it in your conclusion. The BMP series was in my opinion a revolution on the IFV scene while not being the creator of it :)
You said speaking french would have help you quite a bit here; hit me up if you want some help for some translation, I'd be glad to help ! :DD
Good stuff, as always!
Yup. The revolutionary aspect of the BMP was the standard, credible, antitank capability added to an IFV that transported a short rifle squad and was designed to fight through the enemy position *or* stand off and deliver supporting fire.
FYI, the main reason for chosing the 40mm gun on the CV90 was that the AP round could penetrate the T-72 in the side and we thought we would see a lot of those in a potential war
And Sweden made the 40mm gun (probably the deciding factor). Sweden just ordered a replacement batch of CV9035 with 35mm guns,... because Bofors no longer make the 40mm gun.
@@MFitz12 Not correct, the reason for choosing the 35mm gun was that the Mk III version is built for it, there has been no Mk3s built with the 40mm so if they wanted that gun they would have to “redraw” the turret. It is however also true that the 35mm has evolved and basically has the same effect and capabilities that the 40mm has, which it didn’t have 10-20 years ago and it also allows the vehicle to carry more rounds, but the main reason was the first one and they wanted the vehicles built asap
@@kentnilsson465 And the 40mm production line has been cold for over 2 decades. Really, there was no 40mm option
Niche channel, love it!
You know, all these supposed IFV forerunners are all armed with 20mm autocannon, the thing most of them are also specifically resistant against. Of all of these, only the BMP-1 can be credibly expected to engage these other infantry carriers at any sort of range at least on paper.
Resistant to 20mm can mean many things. What it usually means is full-bore AP-T and often from a lower energy 20mm round like 20x110 or 20x103. APDS from a 20x139 is a very different animal.
We saw the same trick of marketing in the 1980's with vehicles frequently marketed as "resistant to 23mm" with the hope the customer would not realize 23mm AP is a fairly poor round and exceeded by 14.5mm in many circumstances.
But at any rate, the 20mm on an APC/IFV in the 1960's was much more valued for its ability to lob HE than punching small holes in BTR's. Note many of these vehicles had only the 20mm and no machine gun. Many could only feed one ammo type at a time and that was usually HE.
Great videos, hope your channel blows up man!
Seems the main revolutionary thing about the BMP was the fact it mounted an ATGM on this type of platform.
I know nothing but getting a kill with that ATGM in real life sounds like hell
@@EdyAlbertoMSGT3I don’t think it’s that much of a problem in the open fields of Europe, the low velocity isn’t that much of an issue when most of NATO’s tanks at the time were pretty slow by modern day or even late Cold War standards. The M48, M60, Centurion, Chieftain and some other tanks were quite slow and would made the targeting easier for conscripts. But I supposed it isn’t good enough and was still too slow and sluggish, hence why they switched to Konkur ATGM.
@@EdyAlbertoMSGT3They pretty quickly upgraded it from MCLOS to SACLOS. Most AT3s are actually SACLOS
The thing that makes it revolutionary is that it's an IFV with a 76mm gun, an ATGM and low profile
American were riding around in boxes in 50 cals
Actually it would be the second time in 20 years that one of Germany's primary arms suppliers was France, and though the acquisition process may not have been free of corruption, it was noticeably free of any armored thrusts through the Low Countries. Maybe not revolutionary but is progress nonetheless.
Being an 1970's Australian Infantryman training to fight Indonesia I'm surprised to be studying Soviet/Russian A.F.V.'s again.
What I did learn in the meantime is that we are the Bad Guys.
Peace.
Nah, mate, that's just you and your diggers consistently treating POWs as target practice.
@@freedmen123 Not in the 70's, we still had an Australian ethos then.
NOW we are assassins for the Yanks, no argument there!
@@freedmen123 I think he means western governments in general. And Australian soldiers certainly had a better reputation in the Vietnam war than US troops.
Good video and you do great work. But I disagree on your point here.
The BMP isn’t just a vehicle to take infantry to the battle or even support them necessarily. It functions as a member of the squad itself. Hence why the commander hops out during dismount. The BMP is a part of the squad through and through. The crews and dismounts even train together and are part of the same chain of command.
Now I’m not very knowledge about the Germans first “IFV” but it doesn’t seem to be the same doctrine.
idk for the swedes or austrians, but for the french AMX-VCI and german Spz 12-3 Lang, they were part of the rifle platoon
the complements were as such for one vehicle:
Spz 12-3 Lang:
1 farer (driver)
1 kannoniere (gunner)
1 halbtuppenfürer (half-troop leader)
4 panzergrenadiere (riflemen)
AMX-VCI:
1 conducteur (driver)
1 radio-canonnier (radio-gunner)
1 chef d'escouade (sl)
1 sous officier adjoint (2ic, usually commands the squad heavy weapons)
1 tireur mitrailleuse (machine gunner)
1 tireur lance-roquettes (rocket gunner)
2 assistants-tireurs (assistant-gunners, one for the machine gun ,the other for the rocket launcher)
6 voltigeurs (riflemen, 3 with SMGs, 3 with rifles)
1 membre section de commandement (one of the members of the section command section mounted in each vehicle, either the lt, his 2ic or the radio bearer)
in each case the dismount leader was the overall leader for the vehicle-dismounts couple, with the gunner assuming vehicle leader role once the dismounts are out, in both cases the vehicle was equipped with a dedicated commander seat (right behind the driver in the Spz, right of the turret in the VCI) and they were supposed to provide supporting fire for the platoon and they of course did their evolutions together
The Sagger couldn't effectively engage targets closer than 500m. The 73mm cannon provided anti-tank abilities within this dead space.
SACLOS missiles made the the 73nm cannon obsolete. The auto cannon was added to fight light vehicles and infantry.
The BMP-3's 100mm gun was built to throw large HE shells and as its ATGM launcher.
Nice to learn more about Cold War stuff! It’s good context for Warno the strategy game
great video man keep up the good work!
I will have to watch this later, I would like to look at the pictures
Nice video
your channels gold
W video. I like you history dives
Excellent vid 👍
Спасибо за видео. Привет из России)
pretty sure the BMP is considered rather light/medium hardware (at ~13 tons) rather than heavy (MBTs, SPGs, 155 howitzers, attack helicopters etc)
I think it would have been a nice touch to mention that the BTR-50 and BMP-1 were amphibious, which the Western vehicles were not (as far as I know) which gave them an operational advantage in certain scenarios.
AMX-10P being the big exception for IFVs. The bradley can be made amphibious via the use of a curtain. Since the BTR-50 is more of an APC, well there is the TPz Fuchs and the m113 for example who are fully amphibous. But its fair to say that these all came later in the 60s.
The claimed amphibious capability of Soviet AFVs is quite exaggerated. I would more accurately say that they are capable of being amphibious with the right preparations. In reality for the vehicle to be amphibious requires extensive additional maintenance work to be done. Most of the time, the basic maintenance is insufficient for the BMP-1 to be able to cross large bodies of deep water.
@@killer3000ad True. But this is true to a lot of eastern block vehicles due to the fact that they were sold on masse to countries which had very poor maintenance standards. Fx. the Iraqis in the Gulf War were going up against The Coalition Forces with vehicles which had severely worn guns and vehicles that were beeing held together with just spit and elbow grease. - They would have lost regardless, but doe to the poor maintenance and planning they lost even more severely.
Slapping a 20mm aircraft gun on a box rated for rifle fire doesn’t make an IFV. You can make an argument for the HS.30 being the first true IFV but even then it wasn’t NBC rated, dismounting was extremely awkward and it was relatively low volume and very niche vehicle. The BMP-1 is the first IFV because it brought all the concepts together plus its own additions - the insistence on the ability to be capable of engaging and destroying every other armored vehicle in the battlefield. The BMP is a revolution because that 73mm was for the time an extremely lethal weapon against tanks, capable of killing most NATO armor frontally. What it couldn’t kill with the 73, it could with the ATGM. It had major issues but as a mass produced vehicle capable of transporting infantry and posing a threat to everything on the battlefield, it was an IFV by both doctrine and design.
Grom was such a piece of shit gun it could hardly hit stationary tank sized object at 500 meters much less penetrate such target, that is if crew itself didn't die from all the toxic fumes it left in fighting compartment after each shot. That gun was a mistake
The BMP is also low volume and awkward for the dismounts. It’s rare to see it used with the true IFV mounted infantry doctrine, and instead the dismounts sit on top and jump off on contact. That’s a pro of the Western “armoured box” concept, it actually has enough capacity that soldiers bother to use its armour.
IFVs are supposed to be able to fight tanks with their atgms too
Does the BMP do turret toss?
A big gun does not an ifv make. its mostly about doctrine and the vehicle basically being an extra, be it chunky, squadmate that provides cover and fire support for the infantry. The bmp was as far as im aware the first vehicle that was specifically designed with this doctrine in mind and mass produced, hence why it is qouted as the first ifv. Its not just an apc with a gun slapped on
You're good. I'll subscribe!
Nice video !! If there's a need for you to translate things from french, i'll be happy to help.
I can even do some research on my own if needed
The pronunciation at 14:50 while off, especially towards the end is still a good try! Definitely better than how most people would have pronounced it :D
I hardly think the HS.30 counts. It was shit in a lot of ways, explaining its short service life and inferior to BMP-1 in almost every respect. HS.30 fit German doctrine carried over from WWII of Panzer grenadier's predominantly fighting from their vehicles. This is just as well since mounting/dismounting from the HS.30 was,..._less than ideal_ . To fight from the vehicle however, the troops had to expose themselves out the hatches.
The 20mm HS-820 cannon was really just _the German fifty_ and the German's employed them much like the American's employed the Ma Deuce. Same with the Austrians and the Swede's. Note the lack of a coax MG. Interestingly German PzGr Brigades never fully re-equipped with HS.30 and much like the WW2 situation where only one or maybe 2 battalions in a regiment had the armored halftrack, usually only one battalion in the 1960's had HS.30, a second had M113 and a third rode in trucks.
AMX-VCI was just better, if cramped. It was IIRC expensive though. All French armor seems designed for legless Pigmies. The 20mm turrets did not get retrofitted to some (by no means all) until the mid-late 70's IIRC (never seen a photo of one prior to that) so usually had a 7.5mm MG before that. NOT an IFV. _But_ there were firing ports for the soldiers to fire mounted and under cover,... so they were half-way there. Which is nice. Those 20mm turrets were later removed and put on 4x4 VAB's to serve as escorts for Roland SAM's. Those VAB's are still in service.
What made the BMP-1 such a thing was it being designed to _fight in close cooperation with tanks on a nuclear battlefield_ - closed up. Nobody else was doing that at the time, so yeah it was novel.
The 73mm Grom gun was not a "misstep", it was a close-range compliment to the Malyutka ATGW. Where the 20mm guns in use on some western vehicles were really just big shell firing heavy machine guns (note the lack of a coax rifle caliber MG on most early applications), the 73mm was a dedicated anti-armor weapon designed to cover the substantial minimum range or "dead zone" of the Malyutka missile. The 7.62mm coax was there for suppressing infantry, just like it had been on earlier machines.
The BMP-2 adopted a 30mm auto cannon to meet the evolving threat and a different requirement. It was not an anti-tank weapon like Grom but intended to suppress the rapidly growing number of NATO ATGW platforms carrying new weapons like TOW, HOT and Milan. These could be launched from well outside the effective range of Grom or 7.62mm machine guns. Punching little holes in M113's and Marder's was a secondary concern. The change to the 30mm was made possible by BMP-2 moving on to more advanced ATGW options than the 1st generation Malyutka, so the minimum range issue was no longer an issue and Grom made redundant.
BMP-3 adopted a 100mm low-pressure gun as a means of firing ATGW from under armor. On BMP-1/2 the gunner had to open the hatch and expose himself to reload the missile launcher, with potentially fatal consequences, especially on a nuclear battlefield. The 100mm missile firing gun allowed ATGW to be fired all day long without anyone getting out of their chairs. Firing conventional HE was a bonus, not a necessity. The roles of the 30mm and 7.62mm coax remain as before, so they are kept.
On a side note: Until the advent of the current generation of fire-and-forget ATGW like Javelin and Spike, I personally was never a fan of ATGW on IFV's.
Canada inspired all of this in WW2 with the Kangaroo! (It even had a bow turret 30.cal)
Good video 👍🏻
BMP-3 having both 100mm and 30mm is good
This is information I am tired to telling tankies. Gonna just link this now LOL
Your russian is very good ))). Russians have short name - "Beha" (sound "e" prononce like in word "bed"), its short from "boevaia" )))
Hold on are we getting bolt action videos?
20:50 what kinda war game??
I may be mistaken here but didn't the British, Americans and most of all the Germans have open top infantry fighting vehicles far before this ?
APC's. And calling them armored is being generous.
you are making a key mistake here - the requirement for the BMP1 was not to be armed to combat other lightly armored vehicles, only main battle tanks. hence the armament in the form of Pkt plus ATGM Malyutka, the 2A28 Grom cannon was added to the armament to solve the problem of fighting tanks at a distance below the minimum firing distance of the Malyutka ATGM, i.e. 500 m. and Dalí, so far we classify as an IFV a vehicle armed with a cannon and an ATGM capable of transporting infantry. The HS30 did not have the ability to combat main battle tanks. apart from the fact that the HS30s were not a very successful design.
Neat, I don't know that about swedish vehicles. The BMP-1 has such a strange history now days too. Iconic in many ways good and bad.
It needs to be fully retired after russo-ukraine war. I've seen to many of the things end up a smoking crater from a cook off.
With how widespread their use is and how many there still are, I expect it will be many decades until their service ends.
@@Cold_Warmasterwell, reminds me of one joke:
Time traveller 1 "Hurray, time machine worked."
TT 2 "Okay, so when we are?"
TT 1 "Ehhh... Oh, zmechol (mechanised infantryman), I'll ask." "Hey, in what vehicle you serve?"
Zmechol "BMP-1"
TT 1 "For all we know, we might be in the future"
Good firepower with the tradeoff of dangerous ammo layout is a hallmark of Soviet designs at this point. Bmp-3s with attached ERA appear to be the bare minimum required to give Russian Ifvs some well needed survivability. Maybe this war will accelerate Russias phasing out of relic BMPs and develop their Kurganets ifvs further.
>It needs to be fully retired after russo-ukraine war. I've seen to many of the things end up a smoking crater from a cook off.
I was literally reading an article 2 days ago where the Ukrainians were calling M1 Abrams deathtraps with horrendous crew survivability
War is war
@@johnclay2716 we live in an era where the swords are sharper then the armour
9:20
"thus must be an IFV"
That's totally broken logic. Just because something specifically replaces another does not make them the same thing, that's not how it works in military.
That might make SENSE, and we can't have THAT in any military now can we?
"PBV 301/PBV 302"
As a Swede, as a Swede who has been inside both the 301 and 302 as well as given the chance to play with the 20mm in the 301, i can FIRMLY and without the tiniest hint of doubt tell you that no, the PBVs were purely 100% nothing but APCs, NOT IFVs in any way, shape or form.
And no, they're "slightly resistant" against heavier than .50 from the front, but even a 14.5 CAN penetrate them from the front, just not every shot or without losing a lot of energy first.
"40mm Bofors"
The CV90 gun was chosen because it allowed the use of lots of advanced variable timing fuzing as well as proximity fuzing and other configurable settings.
Also, 40mm was found to be the smallest gun you could have that could reliably take out infantry with shrapnel, as well as be used with proximity fuzing against aircraft and helicopters.
While it's AP shot at the time of design was capable of penetrating the side armor of ALL tanks then in use or known to being designed.
"IFVs before the Soviets"
Sorry, but you're completely wrong. You're basically just assuming that anything with more than minimal armor and a 20mm gun is an IFV.
Despite obviously not which is very clear in regards to the Swedish APCs(which i de facto KNOW was absolutely NEVER considered anything other than an APC), and at least vaguely clear for the other vehicles, as they were designed as APCs and used as APCs, not IFVs.
"73mm low velocity"
The original BMP cannon is effectively a rocket gun rather than a cannon.
And it wasn't considered so much a misstep, but rather it was too inefficient to do its job.
The problem was that 73mm was supposed to be used against everything in between what the ATGM and the MG could effectively engage, but it was fairly soon found that there were far too many targets that needed automatic fire, more powerful than the MG could provide. Essentially they would have needed to replace the coaxial with a 14.5mm to work more properly and at that point, an actual autocannon was clearly the better alternative.
Also, while the 73mm could penetrate some quite thick regular steel armor, 350mm, once tanks started using composites and advanced composites, the 73mm lost its ability to destroy enemy tanks from the front, basically making one of its major advantages over autocannons completely irrelevant and defunct.
.
You are blatantly wrong about classifying those earlier vehicles as IFVs. Just as the PBV-301 wasn't an IFV just because it got a little bit of extra armor and a 20mm cannon, the same goes for the rest.
One of the reasons being that the 20mm cannon of the time simply wasn't a credible threat to tanks.
The 20mm cannons used on those vehicles, just as on the PBV-301, was there 1st to give airdefence. Otherwise it would still have been an MG or a HMG(again, i KNOW this, they were originally meant to have a tiny turret with a MG, but it got "upgraded" to the 20mm, which caused the PBV-301 to be overweight from the start, and its intended use as airdefence, it was found to be entirely insufficient due to low rate of fire and too slowmoving aim).
Because not long after WWII, the only machinegun still considered even remotely relevant against aircraft were the 14.5mm ones.
And even those were treated more like "if we have enough of them, some shots are bound to hit something fragile" than something truly effective.
Look at all modern IFVs. The smallest cannon used is the 25mm of the Bradley. And the Bradley gun is commonly considered a mistake and making it undergunned, which is why it has the chemical warfare DU-ammunition.
There's a reason why already the Soviet union stopped using their DU-ammunition. The results of USAs use of it is clearly shown in Iraq and ex-Yugoslavia where literally millions have become sick from the toxicity of uranium dust.
All other IFVs have cannons that are at least minimally capable of being THREATS to tanks from the side and rear.
The CV90 drops the ATGM but instead has a bigger gun.
Everyone else focuses mostly around 30-35mm cannons.
OR, if they have a lighter cannon, they have ATGMs.
There's a rare few exceptions, but that's not because of design choice but because buyers ended up skipping on ATGMs because they were retroactively found too expensive, like the Dutch YPR-765 which has merely a 25mm cannon.
At the other end of the spectra we have IFVs with fullpowered 60mm cannons or 40mm cannons AND ATGMs.
Point being, an IFV must be a credible threat to ANYTHING on the battlefield, even if only from the side and rear.
APCs with a 20mm cannon just is NOT.
Soviets/Russians still produce DU ammo for tanks. And as far as I know, they have a real skill issue making AP autocannon ammo - while western IFVs shoot APDS designed in 2000s, Russians get full bore AP designed in 70s, even way after they developed proper APDS.
As for DU being bad for lungs - any powderised heavy metal is bad for the lungs, which will kill you way faster than local increase in radiation
@@Jfk2Mr "Soviets/Russians still produce DU ammo for tanks."
They do not USE it.
And to my knowledge, there is no Russian production of DU ammo.
"And as far as I know"
Ah, so you're just a useless propaganda shill then. Because that was one of the most pathetic attempts at blackpainting a country that i've seen in a long time.
Let me roughly quote a British author of books about autocannons, "if you want anything quality done today for autocannons or their ammo, you go to Russia".
"As for DU being bad for lungs - any powderised heavy metal is bad for the lungs, which will kill you way faster than local increase in radiation"
Who said anything about radiation?
As i specifically stated, the problem with DU that is causing every place in Yugoslavia and Iraq where it was used, to have hundreds of times greater than average medical problems, is TOXICITY.
Uranium is a TOXIN, it is TOXIC.
HOWEVER, Serbia has long since proven beyond any shadow of doubt that DU is also the cause of the EXTREMELY high rates of cancer in those locations.
Serbia is literally at the point where they have considered taking their evidence to a court of law in a CIVIL SUIT against USA.
Because they know they would never have any chance to get a fair treatment in a criminal trial, but they might manage in a civil suit.
That's how massive their accumulated evidence is.
AND, there's people in Iraq trying to work on putting together a case the same way.
And Russia started officially considering the use of DU as chemical warfare sometime 2019 or 2020.
Bro took the video to the heart, thats a good way of separating IFV from APC though, an IFV should be able to hurt a tank
Great reply, although what mostly set apart the BMP from these other vehicles was its armament; specifically the ATGM. Your argument is very sound and I agree that the introduction of ATGM to these vehicles was so revolutionary you could say it was what birthed the very concept of the IFV itself.
at least the HS30 and the VCI were also IFV simply because they were meant to support their dismounts in combat with the 20mm, be it light armour, soft targets or low-flying aircraft (rotor wing or otherwise)
they were part of the rifle platoon just like the BMP-1 is, they just lacked in the anti armour firepower because of a difference of how the countries thought their (mechanised) infantry should fight tanks) but for the designed role and threats of the time, the 20mm was considered sufficient (reminder they showed up before the BMP-1) as the API-T they fired (Spz & VCI, but also the PBV 302) was still able to pierce 37mm @500m /flat and 40mm @100m /30° (from vertical) which would have been sufficient against the Soviet APCs of the time and infantry earthworks
by comparison, the 3BUR6 AP-T used in soviet/russian 30mm does 22mm /60° @300 (hard to find corresponding data, but WT, [i know, grain of salt, yadda, yadda] gives 53mm /flat @500m, so just 13mm better than the 20mm hispano)
and DU ammo isn't chemical warfare, like sure they cause issues if you breathe the dust, but same is for the tungsten used in non DU AP rounds, and radiation is a non issue as DU is less radioactive than natural uranium (hence the "depleted" part)
Russia does still manufacture DU cored projectiles for their 125mm tank guns in the 3BM59 "Svinets" and 3BM69 "Vacuum" apfsds, they just don't use it as like with 3BM32 "Vant", there are some réticences at using DU outside of a major war (about the health issues, but like i mention above, tungsten is hardly any better) and they still have huge reserves of 3BM42 "Mango" to go through, plus those rounds require a gun/loader setup that is either rare, or unavailable (Svinets can only be used in T-72/90 with upgraded carousels, Vacuum can only be used in the 2A82 mounted in T-14 Armata)
The Pbv 302s 20mm gun was originally made for aircraft aswell just like its predecessor. The cannon is a refurbished gun from old J29 Tunnan (the Barrel) but also british imports Venom and Vampire. Why waste a good 20mm
7:26 built by leyland huh
now we know why they were unreliable
To me the "only" big advancement the BMP made was the ATGM.
The ability to be amphibious is not really a big advantage in my opinion. Its nice to have, but ultimately very situational. And if these things cant sail across the Dnipro, they probably whouldnt have made it over the Rhine.
And like it was explained in the video, the auto-cannon and armour werent really revolutionary. And i also wouldnt call the big, low velocity much of an "advancement" because those had already been used on APCs or similar vehicles in WW2. For example the whacky Sdkfz 251 variants.
Well, you are wrong. But we all have our own opinions.
@@goforbroke4428 Care to explain?
It was revolutionary at the time but it’s useless now. It’s under armored and outgunned in todays battlefield even Russia doesn’t use the bmp1 anymore, they have invested heavily into the bmp3 which is a totally unique vehicle apart from the bmp1
Explaining all the Russian Army BMP-1 we see in Ukraine
@@MFitz12 I haven’t seen any Russian federation troops using bmp1 maybe the separatists LPR or DPR but not regular Russian troops. Mostly the BMP3
@@jesseterrell2109 They only had about 600 -3's at the start and have lost about half of them, so look again.
The Russians are even taking the Grom's out of their damaged -1's and mounting them on Vasilek carriages.
@@MFitz12 um no. The Russian army has received 3 batch’s of bmp3s just this year. On the other hand the AFU has lost about 83 Bradley’s either destroyed or damaged to the point of having to be sent out of Ukraine it to mention most of the Leo 2s and 13 Abrams now.
Well done video. Sub and a comment for the algo.
The Bundeswehr is not the same as the Wehrmacht
yes and no