BMP-1 and BMP-2 in Russian Army

The amphibious capability is for lakes and rivers only, but the real problem or issue is balance.

Both the BMP-1 and BMP-2 have front mounted engines to allow rear doors for the troops to enter and exit, but by the time the BMP-3 came along the heavy engine and very heavy frontal armour plus the very heavy turret meant the engine could no longer be fitted to the front as it made the vehicle too nose heavy... being able to float is more than just density... it is balance too. The long narrow nose was good for ballistic protection but also for extending forward the weight of the frontal armour to counter the weight of the crew in the rear of the vehicle.

Being able to just roll into water was an enormous advantage... especially when there are large chunks of ice coming down the river that would smash a temporary bridge....

The irony is that the Soviets had lots of bad experience in WWII with turret overhangs where enemy soldiers would place charges under them... when ammo was stored in the turret overhangs such demolition charges often destroyed the tanks, which is why post war Soviet tanks shied away from turret bustles...

GarryB wrote:The long narrow nose was good for ballistic protection but also for extending forward the weight of the frontal armour to counter the weight of the crew in the rear of the vehicle.

I don't get it.. the BMP-1 and BMP-2 had front-mounted engine already. Why would they extend forward the weight further by elongating the nose? Wouldn't the vehicle then gets awfully unbalanced especially when the troops dismounts?

We can see the BMP-3 has considerably lost its hull overhang; at least it's not as pronounced as previous versions. Would it be possible to achieve amphibious performance close to that of BMP-3, let's say for a hypothetical BMP-X, equipped with the same turret, but without any hull overhang?

Our M113 had trim board that compensated lack of hull overhang. Italians went as far as modernising their M113 into full amphibian.


Russians had prototypes with very small hull overhang and not to mention new BMP, BMD designs don't suffer from very protruded front

I don't get it.. the BMP-1 and BMP-2 had front-mounted engine already. Why would they extend forward the weight further by elongating the nose? Wouldn't the vehicle then gets awfully unbalanced especially when the troops dismounts?

By increasing the angle of the front armour you are making it more effective against horizontal fire. You are also creating an empty pocket in the front as well because the engine was not moved forward or changed in shape to fill the new front cavity.

The change in nose from the BMP-1 to the BMP-2 coincided with the addition of a much larger and much heavier two man turret in the BMP-2, so the extension of the nose becomes a little like the fitting of an outrigger on a canoe that spreads the weight in the water and with the front trim plate deployed stops waves coming up the nose, which would push the nose down as it moves through the water. In later model BMP-2s nose diving started to become an issue with different weight loadings... but the problems were not critical because they tended to use BTRs in the Naval Infantry units that actually landed in surf, while the BMPs were designed for the benign conditions in rivers and lakes.

The new Kurganets is going to be developed into a customised naval branch with rough sea capability and external propellers to be used by the Naval Infantry.

Would it be possible to achieve amphibious performance close to that of BMP-3, let's say for a hypothetical BMP-X, equipped with the same turret, but without any hull overhang?

Probably, but I can't actually see the Russians abandoning the angled front armour plate. BTW angled plates make a lot of sense... the V shaped hulls of anti mine vehicles are designed to redirect the blast of explosions under the vehicle to the side rather than a flat bottom that would concentrate the force through the vehicle and its occupants.

GarryB wrote:
The change in nose from the BMP-1 to the BMP-2 coincided with the addition of a much larger and much heavier two man turret in the BMP-2, so the extension of the nose becomes a little like the fitting of an outrigger on a canoe that spreads the weight in the water and with the front trim plate deployed stops waves coming up the nose, which would push the nose down as it moves through the water.

Thanks Garry, that does make sense.

GarryB wrote:
Probably, but I can't actually see the Russians abandoning the angled front armour plate. BTW angled plates make a lot of sense... the V shaped hulls of anti mine vehicles are designed to redirect the blast of explosions under the vehicle to the side rather than a flat bottom that would concentrate the force through the vehicle and its occupants.

I'm not suggesting abandoning angled front armor plate. I don't think there are any modern AFVs without angled/sloped front armor. Even the M113, which is about as close as you can get to a mobile pillbox, has a 45 degrees angled front.

On a somewhat related note, I don't get what the obsession is with V-shaped bottom hulls. It complicates the design and makes the vehicle unnecessary taller. Tracks lets you go off-road, not on-road/trail where you are being predictable and susceptible to road bombs and IEDs. Sure, sometimes you must go on roads, but the majority of these attacks were made during patrols, and you don't patrol areas you do not control, it's suicide.

Mind you BMP-3 has a more advanced amphibious system than BMP-1, so the boat like hull does not need to be as pronounced.

Don't worry about V-hull, it is not a serious method of mine protection for things like IFVs and tanks. You would end up with a vehicle seriously compromised in every other parameter.
Imagine a tracked vehicle with sharp V-hull, the thing would have absurdly tall tracks

TR1 wrote:Mind you BMP-3 has a more advanced amphibious system than BMP-1, so the boat like hull does not need to be as pronounced.

Don't worry about V-hull, it is not a serious method of mine protection for things like IFVs and tanks. You would end up with a vehicle seriously compromised in every other parameter.
Imagine a tracked vehicle with sharp V-hull, the thing would have absurdly tall tracks

The M60 patton and challenger tanks dboth have V-hulls and their performance isn't hampered because of that. Are there any Russian AFVs ever built with a V-hull?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

TR1 wrote:Mind you BMP-3 has a more advanced amphibious system than BMP-1, so the boat like hull does not need to be as pronounced.

Don't worry about V-hull, it is not a serious method of mine protection for things like IFVs and tanks. You would end up with a vehicle seriously compromised in every other parameter.
Imagine a tracked vehicle with sharp V-hull, the thing would have absurdly tall tracks

The M60 patton and challenger tanks dboth have V-hulls and their performance isn't hampered because of that. Are there any Russian AFVs ever built with a V-hull?

The Patton has slightly rounded edges due to the suspenstion layout. It cannot really be called a V-hull with any seriousness, nor does it give the tank any better mine-protection characteristics.

I would be very interested in seeing the Challanger's v-hull.

Tracks lets you go off-road, not on-road/trail where you are being predictable and susceptible to road bombs and IEDs. Sure, sometimes you must go on roads, but the majority of these attacks were made during patrols, and you don't patrol areas you do not control, it's suicide.

Certain vehicles cannot operate off road... like trucks. Many people think an army is all tanks and IFVs, but the vast majority of vehicles they use are actually support vehicles... many of which have little to no off road capability that need escorts. Options include converting one of the supply vehicles to armed escort, with similar mobility but added fire power, though another interesting idea is the BMPT as a convoy escort vehicle with tank level armour and impressive firepower.

For most heavy armoured vehicles a mine plow is more use than a v shaped hull.

Are there any Russian AFVs ever built with a V-hull?

It was very common for the BTR-60 and later model vehicles to not only survive mine blasts but to continue operations with one or more wheels missing... and they do not have a V hull design.

The most popular armoured vehicle in Afghanistan however seemed to be the up armoured BMP-2 for its armour stopping HMG fire and its powerful armament.

There are russian mrap, not to mention typhoon tender where mine protection is something they adress. Kamaz typhoon for example - show me better protected and armored truck

Regular wrote:There are russian mrap, not to mention typhoon tender where mine protection is something they adress. Kamaz typhoon for example - show me better protected and armored truck

There's MRAPS with comparable capability, but none of them can claim to be as modular as Typhoon.

Mobile artillery intelligence vehicles PRP-4A "Argus", entered service in February 2015 with the Central Military District.

Artillery scouts Central Military District (CVO) learn to identify various moving and masked objects using the latest mobile intelligence points PRP-4A "Argus", which entered service in February 2015.

Also on the new technique practiced the problem of determining the coordinates of targets at long distances and data for the guidance of artillery fire. To do this, "Argus" is equipped with thermal imaging infrared devices and laser range finders that recognize objects that are at distances up to 25 km, and the means of communication, able to handle, store and transmit information.

PRP-4A "Argus" has a modern system of camouflage. It is equipped with heat shields, camouflage net, smoke grenade launchers and equipment termodymovoy repeated action, providing education on the perimeter of a smoke screen width up to 100 m.

Military personnel to work out more than 30 different ways to detect objects and serifs imaginary enemy, including in low visibility conditions.

http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/59004/

PRP-4A "Argus" - proposed modification of "Rubtsovsky Machine Building Plant" , differs from the basic machine better equipment (radar 1L-120-1, active surveillance device 1PN125 pulse and thermal 1PN126) installed termodymovoy equipment, kits disguise (heat screens and masking network) and a modern system of optical-electronic suppression.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%A0%D0%9F-4%D0%9C

____________________________________

More info (in Russian) and pics
http://bastion-opk.ru/prp-4a-argus/
____________________________________
.

Nice vehicle but such an old chassis ugh.

TR1 wrote:Nice vehicle but such an old chassis ugh.

If it works don't.... 


Better solution than coming up with a new multi-billion dollar boondoggle like, oh, hmm.....

BMP-3 exists. Kurganets is around the corner.


That chassis is outdated and has no place in the supposedly new "unified" army. Though the unified concept is already clearly a joke.

TR1 wrote:That chassis is outdated and has no place in the supposedly new "unified" army. Though the unified concept is already clearly a joke.

May be outdated, but it is simple, reliable, and has been worked on for years. My point in this; why bother updating something that doesn't need it?

Because it is a chassis type that is otherwise on its way out of the armed forces?

Why not put it on the BTR-50 chassis while we are at it, even cheaper.

Vympel wrote:

TR1 wrote:BMP-3 exists. Kurganets is around the corner.


That chassis is outdated and has no place in the supposedly new "unified" army. Though the unified concept is already clearly a joke.

Why is the unified concept a joke? I mean, its obvious that for some time the Army will be equipped with a mix of new 'unified' equipment and legacy equipment (and the addition of new BMP-3s to the mix is hardly helping that), but rearmament will always be gradual until eventually a lot of vehicles are part of small unified groups.

Going to be more exceptions than Rogozin has leather jackets.

Also I don't believe the whole "entire units on one chassis" thing is going to be anything more than a pipedream.

It is very good decision to base such vehicles on older and common chassis, they are much less expensive, easily and quickly build,repaired and deployed, that safes money for new equipment in sectors which have much more need for newer and more capable vehicles. Only a headless chicken would waste money for a new chassis for some vehicle that has absolutley zero importance on its chassis capabilities, it does not have to fght other IFV's, it does not have fight anything, wasting money on BMP3 chassis would be nonsense, for much more money without zero pro's over BMP2 chassis for its job.

It is stupid because the BMP-1/2 chassis is being removed from service. Introducing a vehicle that will operate for decades right as you have a new UNIFIED chassis going into service is assenine.

And the BMP-3 chassis is much better not just in protection, but overall. Stability, mobility, load bearing.
The engine is much better as well.

Like I said, let's put it on BTR-50 while we are at it.

Vympel wrote:

TR1 wrote:It is stupid because the BMP-1/2 chassis is being removed from service. Introducing a vehicle that will operate for decades right as you have a new UNIFIED chassis going into service is assenine.

And the BMP-3 chassis is much better not just in protection, but overall. Stability, mobility, load bearing.
The engine is much better as well.  

Like I said, let's put it on BTR-50 while we are at it.

Are we sure the PRP-4A is new production? Maybe its a conversion of an old chassis?

Would make sense. Been a while since new BMP-2 chassis have been made.

It's an upgrade of the RPM-4M

Nice vehicle but such an old chassis ugh.

A chassis they already have in service, have spare parts for...

Why not put it on the BTR-50 chassis while we are at it, even cheaper.

Because they probably don't have enough BTR-50 chasis or motors or spare parts.

In comparison they likely have large numbers of BMP-2 chassis and parts in stock to use up... and when they are used up they can transfer these turrets to newer chassis.

That chassis is outdated and has no place in the supposedly new "unified" army. Though the unified concept is already clearly a joke.

For the concept to work the unit needs to be unified... the whole military force does not need to be unified.

They created the 2S34 by fitting 2S1 122mm SPA vehicles with 120mm gun/mortars... this is just more of the same. They have the chasis... and the parts and the soldiers are familiar with them.... why not use them up?

It is stupid because the BMP-1/2 chassis is being removed from service. Introducing a vehicle that will operate for decades right as you have a new UNIFIED chassis going into service is assenine.

They have thousands of BMP-1/2 chassis and likely just as many spares and tools designed for them... this is a recon vehicle... well it is actually just a turret as the base hull is standard so why not put it on a BMP-1 or BMP-2 chassis and then when they are worn out and replacement modern chassis are ready... take the turrets off and put them on the new vehicle chassis.

For quite some time the new vehicles wont have an enormous pool of spare parts and maintaining them will be new... why not use up old vehicles chassis till there are actually new chassis in service?