BMP-1 and BMP-2 in Russian Army

A nice upgrade for BMP-2

KBP-designed modernized fighting compartment of the BMP-2 - an efficient way of upgrading armoured vehicles

Kornet-E ATGW armour penetration increase up to 1000-1200mm provides the reliable engagement of advanced ERA-protected tanks (Leclerc, Abrams, Leopard

At 1200 mm RHA penetration should this be good for frontal penetration of western tanks with ERA ?

Berezhok turret is good product from KBP, but I don't know if Russian army order any of them, maybe for BTR-90 prototypes.

It looks like Russian army is testing two BMP-2 with Berezhok turret.

Hmm, while they look good I hope they don't pour too much into modernizing BMP-2. Berezhok is not that cheap, and BMP-2 frame is getting old.

Good find.

Give it some decent add-on armour and its ready to go. Cheaper and makes more sense than introducing more BMP-3s, given that we already have the new family of tracked vehicles on the way that should completely replace BMPs.

Yes, BMP-3 is nice but very expensive... upgraded BMP-2s raise their performance considerably without costing too much... and if they order enough the price might become more reasonable.

Excellent photos BTW.

Am looking forward to see the Kurganets-25... I think I remember reading they were planning to reveal it in 2013...

I don't know if BMP-3 production is still going or it was canceled. If it is canceled, that it have sense to modernize BMP-2 with Berezhok turret to have decent day/night BMP capabilities until new Kurganets come into service. New T-90 or T-72BM tanks need BMPs in the same class for proper operational capabilities.

I am pretty sure the BMP-3 is still in production as the UAE are working with the makers on an improvement program.

I would consider the situation to be very similar to that of the 122mm 2S1, where an otherwise obsolete vehicle that is in service in significant numbers can have an upgrade to make it suitable to improve general performance without too much expense. In fact it is like the T-72 upgrades... cheaper than T-90 upgrades and cheaper than making new T-90s, yet still introducing the core of the useful new stuff like battle management systems and thermal night vision equipment that implements the hunter killer type operational use.

In fact it is possible that half the BMP-2s will get this upgrade and the other half and the BMP-3s might get the Bakhcha upgrade which consists of the BMP-3M turret. This would retain the firepower balance of the older units where the BMP-1 and BMP-2 were used together so the unit had direct HE firepower with the 73mm gun but also the firepower of an automcannon in 30mm calibre.

Following the new brigade structure the T-90s and upgraded T-72s and of course the T-80s will be in units with T tank chassis based vehicles like the BTRT and BMPT,and of course the MSTA etc etc.

The medium brigades will need all BMP and BTR type vehicles etc.

I would think however that the first priority is upgrades to get all the vehicles night and all weather capable and linked in with the new network and fitted with battle management systems so training can begin properly.

This unmanned turret similar to the BTR-82's looks like a good way to modernise its BMP-1s.

has it been in accepted by the army? If yes are there any BMP-1s in service upgraded with this turret?

It's the M version that has the Kliver upgrade. If it is in service, it's very elusive, and I've never seen one. There is something like 700 BMP-1s in active service, and the number seems to decrease every year. A significant number of BMP-1's are in reserve, but the state of them is anyone's guess.

IMO, the BMP-1 is going to be the first to get the chop when Kurganets enters service.

AFAIK the BMP-2M upgrade or Berezhok upgrade is the upgrade that has been selected, which is the one with a standard BMP-2 turret with a twin Kornet launcher on each side of the turret and a rear turret mounted 30mm grenade launcher that can elevate but is fixed in alignment with the main 30mm cannon.
It also has the new thermals and panoramic sight for the commander, and appears to me to be the best upgrade for the BMP short of the BMP-3M turret.

Only 700 BMP-1s still left?

Very, very conservative estimate there. And yes, I am talking about in service ones (full readiness brigades, regular army bases + operational storage depots).

Upgrading them is pointless though of course.

There are so few BMP-3s in service that I rather suspect that numbers of BMP-2s will get upgrades. The Berezhok upgrade can also be applied to BMP-1 vehicles, so it is possible that some might get an upgrade but I would think the Kurganets and Boomerang will enter service fairly rapidly.

I remember reading that there will be a real focus on wheeled vehicles so there will likely be rather more boomerangs than Kurganets as both vehicles will be in the same weight class, both will be amphibious, both will have similar armament and sensors and optics and electronics, but the wheeled Boomerang should be much cheaper to buy and operate because of its wheeled configuration.

I think I remember seeing the Kliver turret being offered as a pill box fixed setup and also as a naval system for river patrol boats.

I remember looking up the BMP-1 count during S. Ossetian War and the number was more than twice that. But 700 is what I've seen in sources lately. Since there is something like 10k in reserve, the number changes with the political tension.

In contrast the BMP-2 seems to have much stronger active service numbers, and Berezhok should keep them viable for another decade unless the neighbors rapidly move beyond 25mm and 30mm cannons.

Honestly though, these IFVs were made for a bygone era. I think the Russian army needs to clean out the garage and make room for the new toys.

Not the sort of vehicles you would want to send front line troops into combat in today, but they were built in such numbers in such a wide variety of models for all sorts of different uses.

They are certainly working on their replacements but until they are ready it makes sense to upgrade a few existing models to improve performance and capabilities, and of course doing a bit of research you could identify potential customers of the upgrades of older vehicles, so when the new vehicles come on line you can sell off the old vehicles with updates and all the tooling and production equipment and maintainence and stores to a country that would find such vehicles useful.

I think their amphibious is still a useful feature, and with new weapons and sensors they can be potent vehicle in some regions yet. M113s and FV432s are still in use around the place too.

http://lenta.ru/news/2013/05/15/bmp2/

Tender for repair and modernization of 145 BMP-2s cancelled.

TR1 wrote:http://lenta.ru/news/2013/05/15/bmp2/

Tender for repair and modernization of 145 BMP-2s canceled.

WHAT!!!

If you read the article it seems to me they put out a tender for some work to be done and none of the companies that put in a tender met the requirements.

More importantly than the cancelled tender it states that over 3,000 BMP-2s will get digital upgrades of their electronics and systems and later weapons... which is all good news to me.

That big order always seemed like "talk" and not real substance to me.

This smaller work was more realistic though, its too bad issues like this are still common.

3000 might be an inflated or arbitrary number, but I think a large number will be upgraded in the coming years....all the ones that will remain in service with active units beyond 2015

Hello, I was wondering why do so many Russian military tracked vehicles like the MT-LB, BMP, and BMD series have very pronounced front hull overhang? It's my understanding that such feature would be a disadvantage for off-road mobility. The US M114 (pictured) was considered a failure in Vietnam due to, among other things, having a front hull overhang such that it would impale itself on the banks of rice paddies and ditches. Note that the M114 hull overhang is nowhere near as pronounced as the BMP series for example. What makes the Russian designs different in this regard?







PS. More info on the M114 flaws: www (dot) eaglehorse (dot) org/4_ftx_gunnery/equipment/m114/m114.htm

BMPs case- amphibious qualities.

Amphibious capability mainly.

You wouldn't need as thick of front armor to stop autocannon fire either due to the slope.

TR1 wrote:BMPs case- amphibious qualities.

Zivo wrote:Amphibious capability mainly.

I understand the need for amphibiousness. But isn't the ability to float depends on object density? As long as the vehicle's density is below 1000Kg/m^3 it should be able to float. The vehicle would also need some kind of propulsion system; it can use its tracks or dedicated waterjets. Is the hull overhang used for hydrodynamic purposes? If so, it would not seem to make much difference since, for example, the latest BMP can go only as fast as 10Km/H on water. Is the slight amphibious mobility gain worth losing an off-road capability? It doesn't make sense, since 90% of the time the vehicle would be on land.

Is the slight amphibious mobility gain worth losing an off-road capability?

Since it has that type of front I would say the answer is yes.

It doesn't make sense, since 90% of the time the vehicle would be on land.

Water crossings are incredibly dangerous and risky. But if Successful, can pay off immensely. Less time in the water means a better chance of crossing a river alive.

Remember the BMP-1 & 2 were designed for the Cold War. To understand Soviet design decisions requires you take the key Cold War battlefields into account. Europe is crisscrossed by quite a few rivers. Every one of which is a natural barrier that would have provided NATO forces with a clear defensive line to hold back the Soviet offensive.