Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Tranche 7

[Oaledonia]

Why did Russia even make the BMP-3? As has been stated multiple times in this thread alone, the BMP-2 is a far superior vehicle.

Just because some people here think it's bad does not make it so. There is also a vocal group who supports it as the best thing since the BMP-1. Some of us are just tired of rehashing the same pointless arguments over and over again with a group that can't be convinced anyway.

Because it sucks, and you're wrong.

[United Marxist Nations]

Why did Russia even make the BMP-3? As has been stated multiple times in this thread alone, the BMP-2 is a far superior vehicle.

Just because some people here think it's bad does not make it so. There is also a vocal group who supports it as the best thing since the BMP-1. Some of us are just tired of rehashing the same pointless arguments over and over again with a group that can't be convinced anyway.

Are you one of the ones who supports it?

It fails completely in its role, and the BMP-2 could easily beat out the 100mm gun's anti-tank capabilities with an ATGM.

[Purpelia]

Just because some people here think it's bad does not make it so. There is also a vocal group who supports it as the best thing since the BMP-1. Some of us are just tired of rehashing the same pointless arguments over and over again with a group that can't be convinced anyway.

Are you one of the ones who supports it?

It fails completely in its role, and the BMP-2 could easily beat out the 100mm gun's anti-tank capabilities with an ATGM.

See what I mean. You are just one of the people parroting the same line ignoring the big picture. And that is that the BMP-3 is as a vehicle designed to operate within the greater doctrine of the Soviet armed forces. And that it was designed to fit that doctrine. This includes facts such as 100mm ATGM's being perfectly adequate to combat tanks of the time.

But it really does not matter. I lost all respect for you people back when you were comparing tanks assuming that the only thing that matters is how they perform 1 vs 1 across an open field.


And yes, in case you are wondering I am having a really, really bad day today. And so am extra cynical and hateful.

[United Marxist Nations]

Are you one of the ones who supports it?

It fails completely in its role, and the BMP-2 could easily beat out the 100mm gun's anti-tank capabilities with an ATGM.

See what I mean. You are just one of the people parroting the same line ignoring the big picture. And that is that the BMP-3 is as a vehicle designed to operate within the greater doctrine of the Soviet armed forces. And that it was designed to fit that doctrine. This includes facts such as 100mm ATGM's being perfectly adequate to combat tanks of the time.

But it really does not matter. I lost all respect for you people back when you were comparing tanks assuming that the only thing that matters is how they perform 1 vs 1 across an open field.


And yes, in case you are wondering I am having a really, really bad day today. And so am extra cynical and hateful.

What role in Soviet doctrine does it fulfill? And come on, we're fellow communists, we've gotta be comradely toward one another.

[Purpelia]

What role in Soviet doctrine does it fulfill?

I'll let our resident expert for all things Russian cover that. Am too hateful right now.

[Krazakistan]

How come the BMPV-64 hasn't been brought up yet? It would be possible to up-gun the turret to a 100mm gun without losing a considerable amount of space for the dismounts. I mean, the damn thing already has room for 12 dismounts + a turret with a 30mm A/C. The only disadvantage it would have to a BMP-2/3 would be it doesn't have amphibious capability and is a larger vehicle.

How do you figure?

The turret does not penetrate the hull. It is literally an example of what I was talking about before. But fitting a 100mm cannon in there without penetrating the hull or fitting an absolutely massive turret would be a real trick. If you put an actual turret on it you probably lose half the dismounts.

I figured that since the BMPV-64 already has a large troop compartment you'd be able to mount a 100mm gun on it without losing most of the dismounts, but it seems that I was wrong about that. :T

6 dismounts wouldn't be bad, though.

The VDV does use vehicles based on the PT-76's chasis, though.

Not since 1969 onwards, I think.

What I meant was " did use," sorry.

[Anemos Major]

See what I mean. You are just one of the people parroting the same line ignoring the big picture. And that is that the BMP-3 is as a vehicle designed to operate within the greater doctrine of the Soviet armed forces. And that it was designed to fit that doctrine. This includes facts such as 100mm ATGM's being perfectly adequate to combat tanks of the time.

But it really does not matter. I lost all respect for you people back when you were comparing tanks assuming that the only thing that matters is how they perform 1 vs 1 across an open field.

And yes, in case you are wondering I am having a really, really bad day today. And so am extra cynical and hateful.

BMP-3 started coming into service in 1987. Arkan/Bastion most certainly wasn't adequate, and the Soviets would've known that, having been at the forefront of ERA development themselves.

If the 'greater doctrine of the Soviet armed forces' stipulates that a single vehicle has to fulfill the simultaneous triple role of an assault gun, tank destroyer and infantry fighting vehicle, I think Soviet doctrine needs a bit of an overhaul. And given how radically different the forthcoming Kurganets proposal is at a fundamental level, I'd say the Russians agree.

It's precisely because we're not comparing vehicles in terms of their 1 v. 1 performance on an open field that we can say that the BMP-3 isn't an ideal vehicle - and that's beyond the simpler problems like the venting of propellant gases into the crew compartment that originally plagued the vehicle.

[Anemos Major]

What I meant was " did use," sorry.

I make the same sort of mistake all the time myself.

Just thought it important to highlight that all of the AFVs the VDV currently use are essentially derived from the BMDs.

[Zeinbrad]

This guys has poor egomaniacs. Doesn't it?

The thing in front of the grenade magazine is a attempt at a bayonet lug.

[Yukonastan]

(Image)

This guys has poor egomaniacs. Doesn't it?

The thing in front of the grenade magazine is a attempt at a bayonet lug.

This is the MGV thread, Brad. not the MMW or CYOE thread.
Just FYI.

[EsToVnIa]

This isn't the gun thread

[Zeinbrad]

(Image)

This guys has poor egomaniacs. Doesn't it?

The thing in front of the grenade magazine is a attempt at a bayonet lug.

This is the MGV thread, Brad. not the MMW or CYOE thread.
Just FYI.

Fuck. I was wondering why I didn't see it in the gun thread.

Then it hit me.

[San-Silvacian]

Purp is a supporter of the BMP-3 because its not American and if it was American it would be automatically the worst thing ever and bad and never be good at anything.

Even though it pretty much already is.

[Yukonastan]

Purp is a supporter of the BMP-3 because its not American and if it was American it would be automatically the worst thing ever and bad and never be good at anything.

Even though it pretty much already is.

BMD-4M with BMP-3 turret = automatic improvement of BMD-4M.

[Lydenburg]

Why did Russia even make the BMP-3? As has been stated multiple times in this thread alone, the BMP-2 is a far superior vehicle.

Because, due to there being no massive public works projects, russia needed something to distract the populace.

I thought they just wanted an MGS.

[Padnak]

Purp is a supporter of the BMP-3 because its not American and if it was American it would be automatically the worst thing ever and bad and never be good at anything.

Even though it pretty much already is.

I thought we decided that I was the irrational anti American hate monger

I feel a little cheated

[United Marxist Nations]

Purp is a supporter of the BMP-3 because its not American and if it was American it would be automatically the worst thing ever and bad and never be good at anything.

Even though it pretty much already is.

The Russians seem to agree with that assessment, considering they've only put 720 into service in nearly 30 years.

[Padnak]

Purp is a supporter of the BMP-3 because its not American and if it was American it would be automatically the worst thing ever and bad and never be good at anything.

Even though it pretty much already is.

The Russians seem to agree with that assessment, considering they've only put 720 into service in nearly 30 years.

Does Russia still produce BMP-2s?

I would assume for export, but are they actually fielding new ones themselves? It would seem logical to just create a production improved BMP-2 with the BMP-3s turret (if they're deadset on the 100mm) and call it a day

[Purpelia]

The Russians seem to agree with that assessment, considering they've only put 720 into service in nearly 30 years.

In case you failed to notice Russia hasn't had much of a budget for anything really good as far as hardware goes in the last 30 years. Just look at the aircraft they theoretically have and compare it to what is actually in the inventory.

[Anemos Major]

In case you failed to notice Russia hasn't had much of a budget for anything really good as far as hardware goes in the last 30 years. Just look at the aircraft they theoretically have and compare it to what is actually in the inventory.

Popovkin trashed the BMP-3, the military stopped buying it and only resumed procurement with the caveat that it was an interim to be replaced down the line by Kurganets/Armata and co, presumably to keep Kurganmashzavod afloat.

Even taking the standards of the 90s-early 2000s Russian defence ministry into account, the BMP-3 isn't really a stellar vehicle.

[Padnak]

The Russians seem to agree with that assessment, considering they've only put 720 into service in nearly 30 years.

In case you failed to notice Russia hasn't had much of a budget for anything really good as far as hardware goes in the last 30 years. Just look at the aircraft they theoretically have and compare it to what is actually in the inventory.

God bless Putin's excessively jingoistic and militaristic view of the world

Now hopefully the Russian military will be get the budget it needs to pay for all the fancy equipment it wants, you know for REBUILDING THE SOVIET UNION THROUGH FORCE! peacekeeping in neighbouring nations

[San-Silvacian]

to bad it will take decades for this to happen.

[Padnak]

to bad it will take decades for this to happen.

For the Russian government to start dumping stupid amounts of money into defence?

Not sure if you've been under a rock for the past decade but Russia has been vastly increasing its defence spending and with things going how there going that pattern is unlikely to change

poverty be dammed!

*Edit*
Weather or not the Russian defence industry is up to the task at the moment remains to be scene, but generally when a state puts its mind into modernization and has an existing base to work from, modernization takes place very rapidly

see the modern PRC

[San-Silvacian]

no its going to take them decades to build up a force that can actually be somewhat effective in a prolonged war.

Within a few months of a protracted war thats more than them beating up on former client states they already have bases in, they would quickly get ground into the dust.

[Lydenburg]

no its going to take them decades to build up a force that can actually be somewhat effective in a prolonged war.

Within a few months of a protracted war thats more than them beating up on former client states they already have bases in, they would quickly get ground into the dust.

Depends on who they're fighting.