Following info is from
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forum...?t=68196&page=3 . The person answering the quotes (black text) seems quite knowledgable
The hull mounted weapons can either be PKMTs or AGS-17 grenade launchers. There is a crewman sitting either side of the driver in the hull front and each of those crewmen controls a
hull mounted weapon and aims and fires using a fibre optic sight.
Quote:Btw, does anybody else note the horrible loading setup of the vehicle? entering and exiting in a real situation must be hell, i would rather see a ramp or common rear door(s) there..
The engine is placed at the rear to prevent the nose heavy problems that occured with the BMP-2. With heavy armour at the front and the turret near the front the engine to the rear helps to improve balance. Putting the engine at the front sounds like a nice idea but the materials they make engines out of mean they are not actually very good substitutes for more armour. Tactics are generally for the unit to debark out of direct fire of the enemy and for the unit to move forward with the vehicle following from 2-500m behind to support with cannon and large calibre gun support in the more accurate and quicker acting direct fire role.
Quote:
I have read personal accounts of a BMP3 crew member whom served in the late 90's - he never got to fire ATGM's in training due to costs involved, but noted that it would be a hard task to maneuver the rockets into the loading position if the infantry riders were still present in the vehicle.
They cost slightly over twice the cost of a standard missile like Konkurs, though as with all technology they are getting smaller and cheaper all the time. Needless to say the laser beam riding missiles the BMP-3 fires can be fired on the move and travel rather faster than TOW or any other western weapon. They also offer an anti helo capability most western APCs lack.
Quote:
Seriously, what's up with those 2 hull-mounted, limited firing arc MGs? Is there a particular problem with jihadists throwing themselves under the front tracks?
The two guys that are using them have PKMs as their normal weapons. If they are dismounted and the BMP withdraws they are your units fire support. A bit like the special M16 type guns in Bradleys used specifically for port guns.
Quote:
From Rosoboronexport's site...
"Two 7.62 mm PKT Machine Guns with TNP3VE01 fibre-optics sight are mounted in the hull."
*Shrugs* It doesn't say anything about exactly who fires them. WWII-era tanks often had hull mounted MGs which were used to great effect against enemy infantry.
There are two crew in the turret (commander and gunner), and there are three crew in the front hull with the driver in the centre and two more gunners either side of the driver. It is the two extra gunners that operate the hull mounted MGs. They use fibre optic sights to aim them... they don't just spray and pray.
The following photos of Greek Cypriot from
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forum...ght=bmp-3nicely illustrate some of the
BMP3 interior and hull MGs.
Note the beutiful scenery -- imagine flying to Cyprus for yearly training there instead of driving to Tsaylim
Another thing I noticed is that the
BMP3 is made of aluminum. I remember when I was in the sadir how everyone would say that the M113 was a "death trap" because of the soft aluminum armor while the terrible super BMP was made of "tough" steel armor
Apparently in actual combat, some things are not as great as they seem on paper/Internet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:M...e/BMP-1_rewrite
However the BMP-1 was to be tested in combat in the October
1973 Yom Kippur War.
Egypt has recieved its first batch of 80 BMP-1s between July and August of 1973. A second batch of 150 vehicles between August and September.
Syria had received between 150 and 170 by the start of the war, of which about 100 were commited to the front line. Israeli forces captured or destroyed 40 to 60 Egyptian BMPs and 50 to 60 Syrian BMPs, mechanical problems accounting for a large number of the Syrian losses.
The BMP proved vulnerable to .50 calibre machine gun fire in the sides and rear, and the infantry 106 mm recoilless rifles. The need to keep some of the roof hatches open to prevent the vehicle overheating - meant that the vehicle could be disabled by machinegun fire from infantry on higher ground shooting into open hatches. The 73 mm gun proved inaccurate beyond 500 meters, and the
AT-3 Sagger missile could not be guided effectively from the confines of the turret. The BMP-1's low profile means that it is difficult for the BMP to fire over the heads of the advancing infantry it was supporting, since the barrel is less than six feet off the ground.
On the positive side, the vehicle was praised for being fast and agile. Its low ground pressure enabled it to navigate the northen Kantara salt marshes where other vehicles would have bogged down. Its ability to swim proved useful: it was used in the first wave of canal crossings by the Egyptians.
BMP1/2 with "vayzata:
During the Soviet invasion of Afganistan
the 16 mm side armour of the BMP-1 was found to be vulnerable to 12.7 mm DShK machine gun fire at close range. To address this, a spaced 10 mm armour plate was added to the sides - which reduced the vulnerability to 12.7 mm fire. The extra weight made the BMP unable to swim however - but this was not a significant factor in Afganistan. This upgrade resulted in the designation BMP-1D (Dorobotanaya or upgrade).
When the BMP-2 arrived in Afganistan a similar upgrade was applied resulting in the BMP-2D.
ראשי
צ'אט
21-04-2008, 01:35
מצב כלאיים
