BMP-1 and BMP-2 in Russian Army

Also these upgrades are dirt cheap compared to end product plus they will want them to be on decent level once they send​ them into reserve.

I cannot get why BMP-1 is going to be modernized? not better to finish with BMP-2? OK more armor is always welcome Smile

I don't see anything about more armor
Or you mean as in more armored vehicles?

BTR-82a turret is a pretty neat upgrade but really I thought the main problem is it needs more armor because they get wrecked by a HMG from sides.

Are there still BMP-1 in service with Russian Army or just in storage? Any idea how many?

franco wrote:The new machines are not ready and there still is the target of 70% modern equipment with the Ground Forces being the only branch in danger of not meeting the goal.

agreed, my point was why to modernize BMP-1 is there are ~5000 BMP-2 in Russia?! even for Rosgvardia does it make sense? especially that armor if very weak comparing to any of potential roles

hoom wrote:

I cannot get why BMP-1 is going to be modernized? not better to finish with BMP-2? OK more armor is always welcome Smile

I don't see anything about more armor Or you mean as in more armored vehicles?

yes.up-armored is you prefer and yes again armor is pretty shitty for current battlefield.

Are there still BMP-1 in service with Russian Army or just in storage? Any idea how many?

article says like 7000 in storage

Thks for answers
Apparently I completely failed to register that last line...

last line of article wrote:Today, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and Rosgvardia use about 1 thousand BMP-1, while another 7 thousand are in storage at the Ministry of Defense. Also, almost 7 thousand "kopecks" are used in foreign armies - in more than 30 countries."

I feel that no up-armor is a big failure given we've seen big failure in Donbas & reports from recent ops in Syria say SAA have outright given up on BMPs due to bad armor. (still seen the Jihadis packing in & using as traditional 'infantry taxis' to/from front line which is fine since its a proven way to lose lots of infantry)

Could be the chassis just isn't able to be significantly uparmored due to weight limit/structural issues & they'll be looking to use primarily as fire support/overwatch from distant cover positions (think a tracked Technical which has proven an effective tactic despite lack of armor) rather than as troop carriers, so I guess could be seen as a quite cheap way to get that extra firepower to infantry that otherwise lacks it.

Did I also miss a bit where they said how many they intend to upgrade?

I have been checking production data and export data for the BMP-1 and BMP-2. I found the following:

- Overall production of the BMP-2 was significantly superior to the BMP-1 production.

- In the 1980s and the 1990s, at the time of the agreements for reduction of armament, the Soviet Union and Russia worked to keep the modern armament at the time (between them BMP-2), while intensely exported mid-aged armament at the time (between them BMP-1), in order to destroy only the oldest armament (previous to the BMP-1).

- BMP-2: Production data minus export data (including all units of former Soviet Republics) gives a result compatible with the sum of the numbers given habitually for the BMP-2 active + BMP-2 reserve + BMP-1 reserve. The real reserve of BMP-2 would be approximately of the size of the data given for the reserve of BMP-1 + BMP-2.

- BMP-1: Production data minus export data (including all units of former Soviet Republics) gives a result that only can cover the number of BMP-1 remaining in active service in Russia. Russia would not have a reserve of BMP-1.

- At the time of the Soviet Union and for many years later, the data of BMP-1 and BMP-2 was given in the form of a sum. It seems the interpretation of the total reserve by many of the habitual sources is wrong.

All this explains the fact that there is only interest in the development of upgrades for the BMP-2. The BMP-1 seems in exhaustion mode for the mid-term. The needs of help of Syria and Novorussia only help to it.

It also explains the production of BMP-3 of 100mm.

franco wrote:5. Rosgvardia plans on eliminating all it's tracked vehicles

It means full militarization of tracked armoured vehicles. This is a very logical movement. It is something expected. There is some planned data for it? Maybe completed at this point?

Surely it would be positive also a full militarization of the BTR-80. It would help in a faster demilitarization of the Iveco LMV and the BRDM-2.

A thing about this that seemed odd is the cost of building a heap of new turrets but not doing something to improve the armor.
I may have found the explanation: happened upon a reference to upgrading turrets on existing BTR-82A with AU-220M 57mm turret.

Not sure I believe it (can BTR carry that turret/without major changes?) but if that happens it'd leave a stock of nearly new & already paid for turrets sitting around with nothing better to do with -> would make popping them on BMP-1s a cheap proposition.

It's a bit of conundrum at this particular point for them

On one hand they can't just leave them in barebones soviet setup

But on the other hand it looks like they might actually start getting first Kurganets' soon

Dropping fresh turret on old BMPs and waiting for Kurganets seem like fiscal compromise

hoom wrote:Thks for answers
Apparently I completely failed to register that last line...

last line of article wrote:Today, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and Rosgvardia use about 1 thousand BMP-1, while another 7 thousand are in storage at the Ministry of Defense. Also, almost 7 thousand "kopecks" are used in foreign armies - in more than 30 countries."

I feel that no up-armor is a big failure given we've seen big failure in Donbas & reports from recent ops in Syria say SAA have outright given up on BMPs due to bad armor. (still seen the Jihadis packing in & using as traditional 'infantry taxis' to/from front line which is fine since its a proven way to lose lots of infantry)

Could be the chassis just isn't able to be significantly uparmored due to weight limit/structural issues & they'll be looking to use primarily as fire support/overwatch from distant cover positions (think a tracked Technical which has proven an effective tactic despite lack of armor) rather than as troop carriers, so I guess could be seen as a quite cheap way to get that extra firepower to infantry that otherwise lacks it.

Did I also miss a bit where they said how many they intend to upgrade?

The SAA still use them but if you notice many have rocket screens attached  (caged armour) it's cheap and fairly effective and it's a lot lighter than adding slabs of thick armour all over it. On some T-55 they added caged armour along with small cages on the turret containing sandbags for additional protection. In the past armies have even used slabs of thick rubber to aid protection. I actually think caged armour is a very cheap effective means of upgrade for such vehicles. They added caged armour to observation towers in Northern Ireland during the conflicts I was stationed in Crossmaglen and the caged armour or as we called them rocket screens werent made of thick metal they don't have to be. And they were effective

if you start slapping on slabs of armour everywhere it becomes increasingly heavy which will likely hamper performance in terms of speed and coping with soft ground and light bridges and more often the extra armour is only going to be effective against hmg and 14.5-30mm type guns. ATGW will still penetrate through it.

Pics of upgraded BMP-1

Just a quick question what was the reasoning for soviets developing the 73mm grom gun for bmp-1 while they were already using the 76mm gun on the PT-76? Both have similar penetration and the 76mm has a little more range. I know that spg-9 uses same calibre and similar rounds but effectively they already had a turret on the pt-76 and the pt-76 wasn't getting decommissioned anytime soon.

hoom wrote:A thing about this that seemed odd is the cost of building a heap of new turrets but not doing something to improve the armor.
I may have found the explanation: happened upon a reference to upgrading turrets on existing BTR-82A with AU-220M 57mm turret.

Not sure I believe it (can BTR carry that turret/without major changes?) but if that happens it'd leave a stock of nearly new & already paid for turrets sitting around with nothing better to do with -> would make popping them on BMP-1s a cheap proposition.

The Russians developed a BTR with a 85mm gun and the Cuban's have even mounted a T-55 turret on a BTR-60. So 57mm would be no problem. (I posted pics of the Cuban BTR on this forum Cuba section)

There isnt much difference between bmp -1 and bmp-2 in armour and remember it's a mix between armour mobility and speed something too heavy and it's becomes slower the made objectives is to transport troops under armour to protect against shrapnel and small arms and provide some fire support.

The chassis on bmp-1 is still useful as recce, command, ATGW, mortar, air defence platform etc etc the Greeks removed there turrets and installed zu -23-2 which effectively allows decent firepower but added bonus of being able to engage targets on steep inclines and aircraft. You could even mount a BM-21 on it giving increased mobility and protection or as a mount for SONSA R or strelets. I see the bmp-1/2 chassis as a sort of a slight up armoured MT-LB the options are almost endless the same could be for BTR 60/70/80

d_taddei2 wrote:Just a quick question what was the reasoning for soviets developing the 73mm grom gun for bmp-1 while they were already using the 76mm gun on the PT-76? Both have similar penetration and the 76mm has a little more range. I know that spg-9 uses same calibre and similar rounds but effectively they already had a turret on the pt-76 and the pt-76 wasn't getting decommissioned anytime soon.

that's what I've found
................................Grom 2A28 73mm.......................D56T 76,2mm

weight......................115 kg                                         1150kg
rate of fire.................8-10                                            6-8

Armor penetration.......350mm / 800m.........................280mm / ax 1000m
HEAT/maxefectiverange
modernized................400mm

Recoil.

Still not massively different in terms of creating a new calibre and gun. The 76mm would have done the job.

In theory it's not impossible to put the turrets of grom or 76mm onto bmp-1, mt-lb, BTR 60/70/80. I've seen zpu-4 mounted on a MT-LB, T-55 (syrian), & M113 (Lebanon) used in ground support role which could be useful at stopping VBIED. Many countries have put a variety of soviet weapons on mt-lb,
bmp -1, T-55 & BTR 60/70/80 no reason as to why Russia couldn't and offer these platforms for export market clearing out old stock not just vehicles but weapons such as AA guns and artillery. We have all seen s-60, & various 122mm/130mm/152mm guns mounted on trucks, T-34 etc in syria, Cuba and hezbollah have even displayed pictures of the larger AA guns 85mm & 100mm mounted to be used as artillery and direct fire roles. And chassis can still be useful and bmp-1 chassis is still perfectly useful while grom has largely seen criticism.

The 76mm gun of the PT-76 is a real tank gun.
The 73mm gun of the BMP-1 is a low-pressure gun with a low recoil.

The PT-76 was a amphibious recon tank.
The BMP-1 is an AIFV. The aim was to fit a gun into a small one-man turret. No place for a "real" gun.

d_taddei2 wrote:Still not massively different in terms of creating a new calibre and gun. The 76mm would have done the job.

There was no such thing like new caliber gun. This is a tank variation of widespread and efficient SPG-9 Kopye. Kopye is used till today BTW.

There are 2 things as I can see: recoil (as Hole already mentioned) and 10xbigger wight while smaller RoF. All with similar ammo performances (AT higher in fact for Grom)

In theory it's not impossible to put the turrets of grom or 76mm onto bmp-1, mt-lb, BTR 60/70/80. I've seen zpu-4 mounted on a MT-LB, T-55 (syrian), & M113  (Lebanon) used in ground support role which could be useful at stopping VBIED. Many countries have put a variety of soviet weapons on mt-lb,

ok and how many Hezbollach or Syrian BMPs needed to cross rivers? or lakes? VBIED?! BMP-1 was designed for WW III in Europe...

It would be great, if Russia send those BTR-82A turrets to Novorussia to modernize their BMP-1 IFVs. Cheap and effective with good night capabilities.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Still not massively different in terms of creating a new calibre and gun. The 76mm would have done the job.

There was no such thing like new caliber gun. This is a tank variation of widespread and efficient SPG-9 Kopye. Kopye is used till today BTW.

There are 2 things as I can see:  recoil (as Hole already mentioned) and 10xbigger wight while smaller RoF. All with similar ammo performances (AT higher in fact for Grom)

In theory it's not impossible to put the turrets of grom or 76mm onto bmp-1, mt-lb, BTR 60/70/80. I've seen zpu-4 mounted on a MT-LB, T-55 (syrian), & M113  (Lebanon) used in ground support role which could be useful at stopping VBIED. Many countries have put a variety of soviet weapons on mt-lb,

ok and how many Hezbollach or  Syrian BMPs needed to cross rivers? or lakes?  VBIED?! BMP-1 was designed for WW III in Europe...

Maybe you read my post wrong a zpu-4 mounted on any of the platforms is a good VBIED killer not the bmp-1 with grom. And really don't know why you're commenting on rivers or lakes. Going by your statement you believe rivers and lakes don't exist in syria. They did river crossing near deir remember. And I stated that the turret could effectively be mounted on a variety of vehicles this could be done by any force. Cuba did it Lebanon did it syria did it Algeria even put T-12 on a truck. The point am making the turrets or weapons can be mounted on a variety of chassis and that the bmp-1 chassis was still useful as my post stated.