Russian special military operation in Ukraine #51

Well to be fair to the BMP...it was designed as a taxi, get troops drop troops (provide some fire support if needed) and take off and repeat it was never meant to stay engaged in prolonged combat like a Bradley.

The problem is the russians haven't moved on from this dated platform, The BMP was designed with soviet rush shock tactics in mind.

Not for the kind of war you are seeing now and again the fact it is essentially the same system that's been in use since 66 with just newer versions. The russians are trying to use it like a Bradley when it was never designed for that because its all they have serial production of the Kurg has yet to start

There isn't much the VKS can do when the ground forces themselves are super limited, when you have to spend weeks fighting for four houses in a small spot in the middle of a field because you really just do not have the forces to push, welllll there are costs for that.

But it's also clear Russia has yet to defeat Ukie AD.

Belisarius wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Well to be fair to the BMP...it was designed as a taxi, get troops drop troops (provide some fire support if needed) and take off and repeat it was never meant to stay engaged in prolonged combat like a Bradley.

The problem is the russians haven't moved on from this dated platform, The BMP was designed with soviet rush shock tactics in mind.

Not for the kind of war you are seeing now and again the fact it is essentially the same system that's been in use since 66 with just newer versions. The russians are trying to use it like a Bradley when it was never designed for that because its all they have serial production of the Kurg has yet to start

There isn't much the VKS can do when the ground forces themselves are super limited, when you have to spend weeks fighting for four houses in a small spot in the middle of a field because you really just do not have the forces to push, welllll there are costs for that.

But it's also clear Russia has yet to defeat Ukie AD.

What are you talking about?
There's nothing Bradley does that the BMP can't do.
And Russia has already defeated the Ukie AD multiple times, they haven't defeated it definitively just because the West keeps sending more AD.

Bradley is much more survivable than a BMP and that's a fact, a superior gun.

BMP's are very lightly armored for one reason to get from point a to b QUICKLY. There are dedicated field taxi's meant to do limited impressive fire and retreat and that is how they were designed for the soviet armored doctrine.

It was soviet tanks that are meant to spearhead and take the fire, the job of the BMP was to quickly bring up infantry to support the armored tanks waves and go back and get more men.

Bmp's are super easy to take out from any angle, also a Bradley will take a hit frontal/side hit that would cripple a bmp and most likely save the crew,

I have spent much time around these vehicles, so do not try that BS with me.

No they haven't cause Ukraine still has ADm you can say "well russia is destroying their AD" and sure they are but Ukraine's AD is not neuturalized.

lancelot wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Bradley is much more survivable than a BMP and that's a fact, a superior gun.

BMP's are very lightly armored for one reason to get from point a to b QUICKLY. There are dedicated field taxi's meant to do limited impressive fire and retreat and that is how they were designed for the soviet armored doctrine.

It was soviet tanks that are meant to spearhead and take the fire, the job of the BMP was to quickly bring up infantry to support the armored tanks waves and go back and get more men.

Bmp's are super easy to take out from any angle, also a Bradley will take a hit frontal/side hit that would cripple a bmp and most likely save the crew,

I have spent much time around these vehicles, so do not try that BS with me.

No they haven't cause Ukraine still has ADm you can say "well russia is destroying their AD" and sure they are but Ukraine's AD is not neuturalized.

Compare the specs of a BMP-3 with a Bradley. The BMP-3 has a much better gun than a Bradley.
The armor isn't worse either.

The problem is Russia is still heavily using older BMP-1 and BMP-2 types. But it's not like Ukraine isn't using the M113 either.

BMP 3 armor is only comparable to Bradley on the front not sides or rear even then its only a small front section of it that is.

Guns might be more similar in that case but as a whole Bradley is still much better suited than any BMP due to the fact, its just better protected.

In a head to head a Bradley will always tear through the BMP first because the BMP's design does not allow it to be well armored in all areas only limited sections and that goes for the newest models, the older ones pfft tin cansonly meant to block small arms fire anything bigger will go through em

Big_Gazza wrote:

kvs wrote:The "annexation" of "Polish" territories by Stalin is endlessly bitched about but you never hear about Stalin's generous shift of Poland's borders
west at the expense of German real estate.    To this day the old border is manifest as the look and feel of these lands is distinct from original
Polish lands to the east.   If these annexation bleaters were consistent they would be calling this a Polish annexation of German lands.  

Similarly these pole-ack clowns choose to ignore the 1919-21 Polish-Soviet war where newly reformed Poland under the Pilsudski military dictatorship chose to invade the fledgling USSR in order to take advantage of the civil war.  They siezed the territories to the East of the Curzon line and kept it until 1939 when Poland was defeated by the Nazis, and the USSR rolled back in to reclaim the stolen land.  Western and Polish russophobes have always insisted that this was the Soviets "invading" Poland in concert with their "ally" Nazi Germany, a great example of the unmitigated lies and bullshit that Russias enemies will use in order to smear her.

Every time I ask  some Russophobe the question "If you were Stalin in the same sitution, would you a) take half of Poland, or b) prefer to have the German army right on your border? "

they seem to shut up.

Building animal proof cabins in the woods thread moved to here.

I´m glad that we Germans don´t have any issues with our past.

Taking colonialism as a whole I would say the only mistake Germany made was trying to enslave white Europeans... if only you had stuck to enslaving and robbing non whites you might have gotten away with it.

Well I say gotten away with it... you didn't do anything the French or English hadn't already tried or wanted to do.

People are hardly aware of a fact, that after his death, Hitler ordered national mourning.
In central Berlin cathedral, an official mourning ceremony was held with an empty coffin.

According to the Oliver Stone doco series I saw on the matter he stated that when the Germans approached Stalin about an invasion of Poland Stalin approached the British and then the Poles to see if they could make a counter offer. The poles told them to bugger off because they trusted the Germans more than they trusted the Soviets, and the Brits sent a low level official who basically told them to sort it out with the Poles, so given the choice of Germany on their border on the Polish border or Germany on the line down the middle of Poland, they chose the option that had Germans a few hundred extra kms away from Moscow.

As I said the Brits in their history taught to New Zealand children was evil Stalin making a deal with the devil. Ignoring the facts that Chamberlain had already made deals that would secure a long lasting peace in Europe a short time before that...

I see that Vladimir Putin has finally gave his admission about his own naivety regarding the West since early 2000s.

Something you can only work out in hindsight. In comparison EU leaders and the US still think Sanctions are going to work and Russia will bend to their demands...

Putin said that the thing he most regrets about is trusting the West and giving the West the benefit of a doubt.

You can never tell if someone is worthy of trust until you give it and they fail you.

I have been writing about this for the last 10 years or so. As early as in 2014 I said how Putin made a BIG, BIG mistake signing those Minsk agreements and trusting Angela Merkel. I knew it back then. Too bad Putin knows it only now. How many thousands of lives could have been spared if Putin have had more foresight?

But that is the problem. He had no alternative. The people in the Donbass and Lugansk and Odessa and elsewhere being shelled and murdered and burned to death were Ukrainians. Putin had no right to invade and interfere, and Russia even just a short period of time ago was not really in a good enough condition to actually do what they are doing now... their food production was limited... that came after food sanctions on EU food supplies to Russia and it took a good 5 years to get to surplus.

Equally cutting Russia out of SWIFT in 2014 would have been rather more devastating and their capacity to ship oil and gas to other countries would have seriously limited their ability to keep their economy growing.

As it is, it is actually a rather good time to cut out the western middle men sucking money out of Russian exports and Russian imports, and clearing up a lot of illegal foreign ownership of major Russian organisations that was leeching money out of the country and stifling growth by buying western products and materials over Russian products and materials... look at the shipping and aerospace industry.

If they weren't loosing young men on the battlefield I would say this was great for Russia.

1) BMPs are obsolete and useless deathtraps

BMPs are the same everywhere... every vehicle is a deathtrap on a modern battlefield.

Well to be fair to the BMP...it was designed as a taxi, get troops drop troops (provide some fire support if needed) and take off and repeat it was never meant to stay engaged in prolonged combat like a Bradley.

Actually the Bradley was a direct copy of the BMP, and they changed the design when the BMP-2 was revealed... the Bradley was going to have a one manned turret too, till they saw the BMP-2 with the two man turret and changed theirs too.

The problem is the russians haven't moved on from this dated platform, The BMP was designed with soviet rush shock tactics in mind.

The concept of a BMP is armoured troop transport that delivers troops and moves them around the battlefield and drops back and gives direct fire support.

The russians are trying to use it like a Bradley when it was never designed for that because its all they have serial production of the Kurg has yet to start

In an environment full of anti armour weapons the Bradley is a bigger target than a Soviet BMP of any kind.

HMG is not really effective against either and cannon and ATGMs and HEAT anti armour weapons will defeat both. Pretending the Bradley is safer is ridiculous.

But it's also clear Russia has yet to defeat Ukie AD

Russia has defeated Nazi AD, over and over... it is just getting replaced over and over.

Bradley is much more survivable than a BMP and that's a fact, a superior gun.

Hahahaha... remember that movie they made about it... the Bradley did remarkably well in tests till they found out they were cheating. When they did a proper test with normal load of fuel and weapons and ammo and a proper RPG warhead the whole thing blew up... as you would expect.... because that is what RPGs do. And a Bradley is a metal box filled with ammo and fuel and people and an engine. There is no empty space. Everything burns.

The 25mm gun is actually rather ordinary and can only penetrate old tanks from the side because most old tanks can be penetrated by auto cannon from the side.

The 30mm 30x165mm round is rather more powerful and has a much better HE round which is actually used rather more often.

BMP's are very lightly armored for one reason to get from point a to b QUICKLY. There are dedicated field taxi's meant to do limited impressive fire and retreat and that is how they were designed for the soviet armored doctrine.

They use spaced armour layouts with air pockets for buoyancy so they are amphibious, but that just increases their protection against full calibre AP rounds and some sabot rounds.

It was soviet tanks that are meant to spearhead and take the fire, the job of the BMP was to quickly bring up infantry to support the armored tanks waves and go back and get more men.

And the Bradleys were supposed to do what instead?

Bmp's are super easy to take out from any angle, also a Bradley will take a hit frontal/side hit that would cripple a bmp and most likely save the crew,

Who told you that?

Even the most ancient RPG-18 will take out a Bradley from any angle and any Soviet ATGM or RPG anti armour round would penetrate a Bradley front to back... even though it weighs more than a T-34 tank.

I have spent much time around these vehicles, so do not try that BS with me.

I have spent a lot of time around a lot of things I don't know very much about.

The Bradley has thicker armour because it is aluminium.... at best it will stop 14.5mm HMG from the front but real anti armour rockets and missiles and ammo and it is in trouble.

They kept adding armour so it is no longer amphibious, but it is still not safe on a modern battlefield.

No they haven't cause Ukraine still has ADm you can say "well russia is destroying their AD" and sure they are but Ukraine's AD is not neuturalized.

They keep replacing it with more stuff. And each time they use it the Russians launch Daggers and other weapons and take them out.

The problem is Russia is still heavily using older BMP-1 and BMP-2 types. But it's not like Ukraine isn't using the M113 either.

The fact of the matter is that unless your BMP is based on a tank it wont be safe... and even tank based vehicles are not really safe either.

Claiming a Bradley is better armoured than a Soviet BMP is amusing because anything that will defeat a Soviet BMP will also defeat a Bradley.

Anti armour weapons for use against previous gen tanks will smoke any BMP, and current anti armour weapons will just do a better job from much further away.

BMP 3 armor is only comparable to Bradley on the front not sides or rear even then its only a small front section of it that is.

You think the sides of a Bradley are well protected?

Guns might be more similar in that case but as a whole Bradley is still much better suited than any BMP due to the fact, its just better protected.

Guns similar? A 25mm and TOW compared with a 30mm a 100mm and Konkurs or Kornet?

In a head to head a Bradley will always tear through the BMP first because the BMP's design does not allow it to be well armored in all areas only limited sections and that goes for the newest models, the older ones pfft tin cansonly meant to block small arms fire anything bigger will go through em

When Bradleys spot the BMPs at 4km range they can stop and launch a TOW that flys at what... 120-150m/s while that BMP can fire from 5km a supersonic laser beam riding missile and does not need to stop driving to guide it...

At 7km the BMP can start landing HE shells around the Bradley killing its troops if they are deployed.

You just have to look at these guys faces to see that the Bradley is not exactly too comfortable in the water.
Standard practice - everybody outside the vehicle for safety!

That was an early model Bradley... pretty soon the armour increases led to extra weight and losing too many vehicles while swimming so the swimming capacity was retired.

Belisarius wrote:

Bradley is much more survivable than a BMP and that's a fact, a superior gun.BMP's are very lightly armored for one reason to get from point a to b QUICKLY. There are dedicated field taxi's meant to do limited impressive fire and retreat and that is how they were designed for the soviet armored doctrine.It was soviet tanks that are meant to spearhead and take the fire, the job of the BMP was to quickly bring up infantry to support the armored tanks waves and go back and get more men.Bmp's are super easy to take out from any angle, also a Bradley will take a hit frontal/side hit that would cripple a bmp and most likely save the crew,I have spent much time around these vehicles, so do not try that BS with me.

The basic BMP and Bradley armor cannot withstand more than heavy machine gun fire and shrapnel, some variants have spaced armor and ERA and can withstand a few hits from HEAT-type munitions and that's it.

No they haven't cause Ukraine still has ADm you can say "well russia is destroying their AD" and sure they are but Ukraine's AD is not neuturalized.

Russia has already neutralized the Ukrainian AD, what they are doing now is neutralizing the Western AD

Hardly, I have seen Bradley's take more because of a superior armor layout.

Now if you wanna up armor a BMP sure you can do that but then it limits the BMP. Again the BMP series wasn't design with prolonged fire fights in mind. Its layout and lack of decent armored zones make it very easy to take out. This is why the thing is getting taken out at alarming rates

As for the AD argument, this is semantically on your end. Does Ukraine still have AD? Yes so its not neutralized, doesn't matter how much russia has taken out if Ukraine still as AD and they do, a SU34 got knocked out then you cannot say Ukie AD is neutralized

Indeed the Bradley isn't meant for water crossing, it cannot float like the BMP can and that's exactly the point, BMP to stay light enough for then has to sacrifice protection hence it is a tin can that can withstand small arms fire only.

People can talk all you want, I can just look at the war for te facts, BMPs are getting knocked out in ease left and right and Bradley's are taking more damage and getting away and sure some get lost but no vehicle is immortal and I am not saying the bmp is trash, I am saying its being used in a role it wasn't intended for and any vehicle of war when used in a role it wasn't designed for will perform poorly.

Indeed the Bradley isn't meant for water crossing, it cannot float like the BMP can and that's exactly the point, BMP to stay light enough for then has to sacrifice protection hence it is a tin can that can withstand small arms fire only.

The Bradley and the BMP are considered light vehicles and both contain Aluminium armour and spaced armour.

The difference in armour performance means nothing depending on the weapons the enemy uses.

Your average tank over the years has been designed generally (with a few exceptions like the Leopard One) to be protected from enemy main tank guns from the front 60 degrees, from the main enemy auto cannon from the sides and from HMG fire from the rear.

If you have ever seen War Thunder... it attempts to model vehicles and weapons and armour and does a reasonable job though I disagree with the overpressure stuff in some cases, and of course being a game you can repair by holding down a button where in real life the crew would bail and run and hope the vehicle can be recovered and repaired. No one gets out of a tank or BMP to fix a track in the middle of a fire fight... you decide if you need to bail or can remain for help to arrive.

Very simply modern auto cannons with modern ammo can penetrate enemy vehicles at close range from the side, and that includes tanks.

The Bradley would probably stop 14.5mm HMG from the front in its latest models, maybe even 30mm cannon rounds from the front, but not from the side, but most RPGs including old disposable rockets like RPG-18 and RPG-22 will simply penetrate the full length of a Bradley front to back.

Your experience probably includes third world countries with RPGs past their prime sold cheaply because they are not very good.

Most Russian Anti armour weapons will penetrate a 30 ton vehicle and there is no shame in that because most of them were intended to penetrate tanks of the M60 and later era so any 30 ton vehicle is just going to be butter.

More importantly Bradleys were not designed for Ukraine weather and many seem to have been abandoned intact without any damage.

If it make you feel better the Euro super BMPs don't seem to have fared much better.

The Bradley is certainly better than the M113 whose armour barely stopped AK bullets from close range.