When development finally goes well - BMP-3 History

[@theimmortal4718]

First guy to ever say a BMP was comfortable, under any circumstances

[@bobiwt]

@@theimmortal4718 „…As comfortable as a war machine can get“ 😂

[@theimmortal4718]

@@bobiwt I think it might be the worst. You have to climb over the engine. The Russians always ride on top. I'd say the CV90 or the Lynx would be the most comfortable

[@samg5463]

I think the biggest issue with the BMP is it’s a legacy of the Soviet low profile design doctrine on their armored vehicles. It’s a trade off but a bit more height on the chassis would solve a lot of the crew issues and allow for more flexibility in integrating new systems into the vehicle. Regardless it’s a neat IFV.

[@bobiwt]

They sacrificed a lot to be lower profile. Unfortunately, this doesn‘t really matter anymore on today‘s modern battlefield because of thermal imaging sights. It might help a bit, but not enough to justify the tradeoff (in my opinion).

[@tamiraaa8916]

​@@bobiwt it's easier to hit a taller vehicle if you shoot an anti tank rocket, or older atgms

[@okakokakiev787]

Exceot rpg spg atgm love taller vehicles? Sure small height doesn't matter?

[@whatisdis]

Imo its a 50-50 even with thermal imagings. A smaller vehicle with upgrades may have same hitbox with a a larger sized vehicle without upgrades. This does not dismiss the fact that larger sized vehicles allows more upgrades while remaining virtually same from the outside but for some upgrades like soft-kill protections or blast-plates (I forgot the actual name for it) a smaller vehicle might be advantageous vs larger vehicle in some situations. It might also lose in some situations but it really depends on what each military doctrine might prefer. Smaller vehicle may be more traversable in urban areas or forests. Kinda redundant in open plains instead. So, yes a lot of tech might made lower profile vehicles redundant, but in war sometimes even redundant things might not be too redundant like machine guns on fighters. Military will only make it obsolete if they find it quite detrimental to them to keep it. So, would I prefer higher or lower profile vehicles? I would choose lower so I can hide it at home. In war, yeah anything would do.

[@tofu9673]

This is true, but as far as I know the bmp-3 is actually quite spaceous compared to other Soviet tanks and if, because of the engine being in the back. This is bad for the infantry though

[@va_sirberpasir9708]

Às some people already mentioned how inconvenient the transported troops got out, as per my knowledge its use by Indonesian marines as quasi-Light tank, they almost never use the infantry compartement and go in dedicated troops transport (BT3F or BTR50) instead I love how some of my compatriots when asking about their experience with BMP-3 always end up The mounted troops hating it But the crew is loving it for the ammount of firepower it can dish out

[@bobiwt]

Here’s some more information I could find about that: Regarding the troops' opinions, it's true that the unusual method of exiting the vehicle often causes complaints. It requires more effort compared to vehicles like the M2 Bradley, Marder IFV, and Warrior, which have large, powered rear hatches. As shown in this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/lYCwd2qwms17rrssi=Et5b4L-9FRanTd7u soldiers must first lift the top hatches, then open the rear hatches, and finally jump out. This is in addition to the difficulty of stepping onto the engine deck from the passenger compartment, especially when fully geared. Despite these challenges, the issue isn't severe enough for troops to completely dislike the vehicle, though it does cause frustration and negative impressions in combat situations.

[@Galaxy-o2e]

I always wondered, why is the Indonesian Marines so mechanized and armored when compared to the Indonesian Army?

[@va_sirberpasir9708]

@@Galaxy-o2e my personal thinking was because doctrinal differences, the army rely on regional command infantry, artillery and motorized formations to delay the opposition to until the actual fighting unit the KOSTRAD Strategic commandarrive and push them back. while Korps marinir with its limited size commited to actual fighting force akin to KOSTRAD, so you can say Marinir is Kostrad for the Navy

[@osmacar5331]

the BMP-3 and BMD-4 turrets the 100mm is like a HE slinging pump-action. i do want to know how that 100mm works, that reloading action is intriguing.

[@bobiwt]

@@osmacar5331 Pretty sure I can make a vid about that

[@osmacar5331]

@@bobiwt pretty sure i would appreciate that. i have been fascinated with soviet/russian engineering, at its principle level. while i can understand how it works. the semantics you can't quite get when it's all concealed and covered up. and dismantling a BMP3 or BMD-4 is not possible for me. at least legally. though i will say having a 100mm gun with the autocannon in a simple complex is adantagious, after all, the IFV can engage fortifications saving MBT usage for more heavier targets or engagement situations. just make it solely 100mm HE and slap the missiles outside and you just perfected the complex.

[@itsericzhou]

@@osmacar5331adding another launcher to the bmp3 would make it heavier than it needs to be. Furthermore it means that someone would have to reach outside to reload the atgm. While barrel launched atgms don’t have as much range, they do the job well enough and most engagements will not require the 10km range boasted by something like the kornet em. Honestly the autoloader is really cool for the bmp3 since it can load he and atgms which are really long. Old models used to need a human in commander seat or passenger seat to ram it I think. I recommend tankograd if you want to learn more about Soviet engineering

[@Beloskiiii]

Modernised Bmp-3 with thermals is still in production at kurganmashzavod in Russia

[@cherrypoptart2001]

Of all armored vehicles in Russia currently BMP-3s are being produced the most according to a report from Uralvagonzavod

[@DarkAzreal]

I still think the bmp3 is a bad vehicle because of the way you exit

[@elarmino6590]

Up the sky because a fking drone recon us

[@bobiwt]

The dismounting of the infantry has been one of the critics about the BMP-3, from the infantrymen themselves.

[@mr.waffentrager4400]

Well it's not your Nan's SUV

[@bobiwt]

@@mr.waffentrager4400 It‘s your grandfather‘s battle bus

[@QwertAsdfg-ih1ow]

No, you think is bc you hate Russia.

[@antoniojosefernandezespino4455]

Its firepower is certainly impresive and a big advantage. But I wonder if it can be a drawback as well, since it has to store a lot of big 100mm HE shells in a rather confined space (because of the cuestionable low profile requirements). I've seen plenty of videos of them producing huge explosions when hit.

[@Xcyptionz]

bro really used war thunder footage of the BMP-3 💀

[@Galil-aces]

Lots of KZbinrs do so go to archives if you want to spend your time looking at spread sheets or low quality or old tank footage I do so it’s something to do

[@bharathyadav1589]

Bro is an underated youtuber, love your content

[@bobiwt]

@@bharathyadav1589 Thank you a lot! I appreciate it 😃

[@bharathyadav1589]

@@bobiwt anyday brother

[@Galaxy-o2e]

This IFV embodies the Russian Army, focusing on firepower and mechanization at the expense of infantry power

[@cybernetic_crocodile8462]

BMP-3 definetly has its flaws, mainly the uncomfortable dismount way and rather weak armour. That being said it is still impressive machine and very universal platform. Also, would you make a video about IFV Borsuk? It is new, Polish vechicle, that supposedly may enter service this year to finally start replacing the damn BMP-1, which geniuses from Polish MoD and Army decided to not modernise in the past 30 years. What makes this IFV so unique among NATO armies is it being amphibious yet still aiming for quite high protection level.

[@Geniy_B_Kvadrate_XD_ua]

As far as I know it also has reliability issues

[@bobiwt]

Thanks for adding this. Sure I can make a video about it. Gonna make sure I write this and some other suggestions down, because I‘m traveling at the moment.

[@YossefMan-hg9cz]

Weak armour ? Its armour is on par or better than most ifv

[@Geniy_B_Kvadrate_XD_ua]

@@YossefMan-hg9cz it really isn’t. Frontally? It is on par with Bradley or even a bit better due to fuel tank being at the front, but on sides and back it is seriously lacking

[@rs5974]

Great vid! and can you make a vid about j-10c fighter jet?

[@bobiwt]

Thanks! I‘ll probably make a video about it in the future!

[@rs5974]

@@bobiwt Great thanks!

[@jerryle379]

Bmp3 turret are good , it the hull is the problem, the chinese bought the turret , hired the same russian that design the bmp3 hull but ask them to move the engine to the back change here and there and you get zbd 04

[@Cody38Super]

You spelled "detonating" wrong in the title....

[@ivanpetrovski3211]

"As comfortable as a war machine can be" Don't you mean "As comfortable as a soviet war machine can be"

[@bobiwt]

Oh right Western war machines are more like armored houses with a cannon

[@123supporter]

Zero armor and what is that? A trunk?

[@bigboi7817]

Bmp3 needs more armour. Bradley has better effective armour. Also seems to do worse against tm62 mines than bradley. I dont understand why russia is so insistent on the amphibious. They can have specialized air droppable or amphibious ifv in mass(ish) production/ refurb bmp/d 2 or bmp3/bmd4 (even the btr is amphibious). I feel like prioritizing safety over amphibious is the right play considering how badly all the amphibious operations have been over the last couple years. As a light tank its cool with weak armour but as an IFV its goofy. Very cool in SQUAD though.

[@bigboi7817]

@Oppen1945 point still stands. In modern conventional combat russian vehicles need better survivability more than wading/amphibious.

[@markjmaxwell9819]

It does have issues like minimal armour protection and when reloading the main gun it also causes the 30mm to be out of action while the reload takes place. With the fire control electronics lacking in sophistication compared to it's western counterparts. Some definite flaws in the vehicle. 😎🇦🇺

[@vonvonvonvonvonvonvonvonvo7009]

It has enough armor to survive the same things a Bradley will, AKA, shrapnel from artillery, any direct hits by modern weapons will knock either one out with ease, the armor is just wasted weight. The 30mm being out of action for a few seconds because you just launched a 100mm mortar at someone is not at all an issue. The FCS is literally better than most western vehicles.

[@markjmaxwell9819]

@@vonvonvonvonvonvonvonvonvo7009 The Bradley is forty year old technology. Try taking on the Australian Redback IFV....

[@artiomvv569]

The only good thing about the BMP 3 is it's armament. The rest is quite lacking, the armor is still thin and the way how troops dismount is cumbersome and awkward.

[@endermarine1686]

audio is always a lil choppy

[@bobiwt]

Yeah might be. I don‘t have a real professional mic yet, I record with my phone 😅

[@Beneficiis]

I think... BMP3 is overall a bad vehicle. Let me elaborate. It has decent frontal armor but other sections are quite thin and still penetrable by .50 cal. Due to it's weapon system - it has a lot of internal volume filled with ammunition, especially 100mm HE shells can cause nasty internal explosions. Comfort for carried troops is non-existent and dismounting is cumbersome process that leaves infantry exposed for too long. So from another angle... you get metal box with big gun and a lot of things that go boom inside that box, with troop compartment being an afterthought. A box that does not provide any protection from mines, does not provide any shock absorption for them either. so very weak to mines, very weak to any side shots, prone to explode. Still it is better that it's BMD counterpart (BMD-4) because it actually has armor. BMD-4 shares most flaws but replaces frontal armor with "hopes and prayers" - in Ukraine wrecks of BMD-4 were kind of rare due to the fact that it has tendency to evaporate after being hit (leaves only tracks stamped into ground). Russian doctrine regarding IFV is just bonkers since they use them like light tanks, while West is still primarily concerned with IFV 's delivering soldiers safely to the combat zone, and then provide support. Russians have it flipped - they want vehicle to fight while soldiers are just meat inserts to provide security to the vehicle. Per western doctrine you actually want to separate ammunition from crew and mitigate risks of ammo cooking off at expense of firepower and increase protection as much as possible so that IFV can safely deliver the troops, with support being secondary. Russians just... think everything needs to be a tank.

[@SeminarioMAE]

who are the good guys

[@bobiwt]

The ones who bring hotdogs

[@TimberwolfMountaineer]

Russians finally figured how to make stabilized small caliber cannons? Wow. Hallelujah!

[@yaya_is_real]

huffing on that reddit glue

[@endermarine1686]

should have mentioned that it was a 100mm meaning it could take t55 ammo

[@thecrab2791]

its a low pressure gun. Im sure you could theoretically jam a T-55 round down the breach since they are the same diameter, but i doubt the gun could take the stress of firing T-55 rounds

[@endermarine1686]

@@thecrab2791 ik, mb for not elaborating but that some rounds like the glatgm could be fired

[@nikola12nis]

They did take the t55's HE projectile. Problem was, it had walls that were too thick (made to withstand being fired at high speeds), which resulted in pretty low HE charge. They fixed that later on, creating much thinner walled HE shell, increasing the payload by a lot. UOF-412 was the first one, OF-32 was the proper one, made a bit later.

[@Vlad_-_-_]

@@endermarine1686 T55 did not have a gun launched ATGM

[@endermarine1686]

@@Vlad_-_-_ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M117_Bastion

[@qittfthegame6128]

BMP 3 is shit because it doesn't have apfsds

[@HendyMan-io4ls]

But it can mount ATGM so your opinion is invalid!

[@mariuscornel]

ha ha this should be called a civilian tractor . in Ukraine was easy to destroy, didn't offered protection and the gun was of very low quality. another example of russian genius

[@tofu9673]

How can you measure if the gun was low quality? And in fairness a lot of Bradley's have been destroyed too.

[@Wrathfist]

Calling soviet engineering shit. Maybe you should stop huffing glue my guy.

[@bobiwt]

@@Wrathfist It‘s a joke. If it was shit I wouldn‘t make so many videos about Soviet stuff.