Talk:BMP-3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the BMP-3 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Table is titled BMP-2!

But the table is titled BMP-2!

Ok, I added a table for the BMP-3. The article is really about all the vehicles in the BMP family. JNi

[edit] Translation "combat vehicle infantry" is incorrect

The translation "combat vehicle infantry" is incorrect. Пехоты here is in the genitive; the literal translation is "combat vehicle of infantry" or for a less awkward-sound translation "infantry combat/fighting vehicle."

I meant "litteral" in the sense of word-for-word. Of course, the meaning is not word for word, but that's already covered by the introductory sentence, which identifies the BMP-3 as an infantry combat vehicle.
Urhixidur 04:58, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

[edit] Death trap?

I dunno if anyone has heard this but during the war in Chechnya the Russian troops did not normaly ride inside the BMP-3s because they where very vulnerable. --Theredstarswl 03:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I tried to search around for information about BMP-3's in Chechnya, but couldn't find anything related to any perceived vulnerability. However, I did find alot of pages that praised the BMP-3 and heavily criticised the American LAV-3 and Stryker vehicles. So I guess we shouldn't add this "death trap" opinion to the article, for now at least. --129.94.6.28 02:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It's probably no more of a death trap than any other APC. APCs typically have a lot less armour than tanks (the M2 Bradley is just about the only one which comes close, although it carries less troops than most APCs for that reason). They're pretty much proof against shrapnel and small arms at medium to long distances and that's about it. If they're used in an environment where the enemy has access to rockets, mines, shaped charges, heavy machine guns and light cannon they're not much more than mobile targets. In that kind of an environment, APCs have to rely on offensive firepower to survive. At least troops sitting on top can jump off and run away if it comes under fire, which isn't really possible for those riding inside, hence that tactic. 202.181.8.3 01:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This was a practice in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Chechnya, where troops in various APCs were afraid of ambush by RPG. See the second section of tank desant. Presumably, a factor was also that the entire section had eyes and rifles out to suppress an RPG gunner's position. I haven't seen any actual evidence for whether it was safer or not. —Michael Z. 2005-12-5 15:55 Z

I was reading a book on Soviet armor during the cold war and it states that they still use magnesium alloy for tank/APC construction which according to the book burns very hot, It may be a contributing factor. --Theredstarswl 22:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


The BMP-3 is not an "APC", it's an IFV, Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

[edit] Claim about all ATGMs require vehicle to be stationary

"AT-10 Stabber suffers from the drawbacks of all ATGMs: the vehicle has to remain stationary while firing". That is not true. According to the producer's web site "Possibility to fire from a halt, on the move and afloat with the same effectiveness using all weapons." http://www.kurganmash.ru/eng/BMP_3.html

Already T-64 could fire its ATGM from move.

I don't know the answer to this question, but it would be true that the vehicle has to remain exposed while firing. —Michael Z. 2006-09-10 14:38 Z

[edit] Which missile?

9M133 Kornet (AT-10 Stabber)

I think these are two different missiles. Which is fired by the BMP-3?—Michael Z. 2006-09-10 14:37 Z

Good spot - it's the AT-10 that it fires (through the barrel). Megapixie 14:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AT-10 vs. MBTs

"The AT-10 is capable of penetrating the armour of all MBTs currently deployed."
This is a 10cm missile....i wonder why the Russians make 15cm missiles, if the AT-10 can kill "all". If it would be a top-attack ATGM, then the article might be even right.

Tank armor depends on angle. M1 is designed for brief head-to-head tank battles, and has very good frontal and turret armor, which stops even 125-mm HEAT rounds and can only be penetrated by AT-13 and higher. However, the side and back armor can be pierced by a simple RPG. Some other countries have different design principles, for instance T-80 is focused on high intensity combat, so focuses on high rate of fire and all-round protection. AT-10 can destroy any tank with a side, back or top hit, or weaker tanks at any angle. More sophisticated and power systems aim for weapon parity when confronting tanks head-to-head. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A tank with chobham,spaced armour,and reactive could protect against AT-10s. Active armour could protect against ATGMs well. Dudtz 10/20/06 10:20 PM EST

It heavily depends on the point and angle, and on the desired result - total destruction, mobility kill, blinding. The front armor is usually very good. Sides are partially protected. The top of the rear is almost unprotected. Everything outside armor can be disrupted even by 20mm autocannon or RPG. So different weapons are still in use. A number of ATGMs and RPGs have tandem charges, which include one exploding the reactive armor and the other piercing the main. The story with Merkavas was an example. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 08:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The reactive armour should be able to disperse most of the molten metal from the first explosion,the Chobham should be able to protect against the second charge,and spaced armour would also help allot. Dudtz 10/21/06 5:17 PM EST

It's not like all of this doesn't help - but the ATGMs and RPGs are also progressing, and the armor is always harder to improve than the weapon. The full amount of armor can only be placed in the frontal arc. The tracks in partucular are unarmored (the skirts don't protect from anti-tank weapons), air intakes have problems, and the upper side is weak. Practically all tanks have a similar armoring scheme (reactive-composite). The RPGs have mostly been repelled except for mobility kills, blinding and above/side shots, but heavier ATGMs count for a good percentage of tank kills nowadays, including against the best armored tanks. Except for frontal arc, even a RPG can be effective - as we already have in the Chobham armour article, "one M1 was hit on the side skirts, below the turret ring by PG-7VR, a tandem charge RPG, in the Iraq War. The jet penetrated the skirting armour and side hull armour, then traversed across the tank's interior and finally penetrated 1.5 to 2 inches into the hull armour on the other side." ATGMs are generally more powerful and can hit better spots. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Vyacheslav Mironov's memoirs

Someone posted a blockquote from what appears to be a book by this author, and I was just wondering if anyone who has access to the book could post its ISBN? --Edward Sandstig 18:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

ISBN 5-902005-01-9 for the 1st Russian printed edition. English translation never been printed and exist only online at ArtOfWar.ru --SkifAlef 05:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Combat record / Book by Mironov

First of all, Mironov's book is not memoirs, it's a work of fiction largely based on his experience in Chechnya. It's important to understand the difference.

Fiction means that the book is a fabrication, e.g. a story made up by the author. Mironov's book, as I understand it, is a first hand account of his experiences (I read the partial English translation). So what do you mean that it's fiction? Toby Douglass 19:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The Publisher's foreword to the Russian edition of the book (see "Примечание публикатора") specifically says that all names, geographical locations and time frames have been changed and the book must not be viewed as the actual report. Thus, this book is fiction, not memoirs.
It is common enough when writing about real events where it is prudent to protect identities to change names and times and so on, while still telling a true story. This doesn't mean the material is fiction. For example, when people write in blogs, they always changes names and places, so people remain anonymous. The story told is absolutely true, though.
No, for memoirs such disclaimer is not common at all. "Memoirs", where names, locations and time frames have been changed would be a joke and disrespect to the readers, for there's no way to judge how much of the story is true. On the other hand, books of fiction quite often have similar disclaimers to limit author's liability for making false claims.--C1010 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It does, however, lead to the question of how much is being fabricated, exaggerated or distorted. If you can distort location and time, you can distort action, and/or the significance of action. It is quite obvious that Mironov had no great feelings about Chechenya, and once you stop holding yourself to truth, it is easy to alter a detail here, a fine bit there, all to prove your point.
  • Take for example Viktor Suvorov. In his books Liberator and Inside the Soviet Army, he has blurbs about what supposedly happened to him. However, a quick look tells you he can't even keep his story straight. In Liberators, he graduated from Kharkov and was immediately thrown into a Training Tank Regiment (originally equipped with the very newest T-64) preparing for the big Soviet exercise/demonstration in 1967. In Inside the Soviet Army, he only started after a one month leave, and he was placed as a company commander of motor-rifle troops in a Category B motor rifle regiment. Since the emphasis was different in the two books, I think it obvious he just wrote what was convenient. Kazuaki Shimazaki 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The Publisher's foreword also warns that the book contains many errors and confusions when it comes to technical characteristics of different weapons and armored vehicles, for Mironov's military specialty was Communication Equipment (that is, he was never trained to use BMPs or conduct infantry operations) and several years had passed before Mironov started to write his book. --C1010 13:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I mentally reject this because I think what Mironov wrote came from his actual experiences. It may be he gave things the wrong name, but since I think he actually *did* the things he wrote about, I can't see what he writes is *itself* in error - it *cannot* be, since it happened - but I can see he might for example have thought a T-64 was a T-62 or that the certain weapons were in use when in fact they were different weapons, etc.
Actually, it makes his "testimony" (if it was such) VERY suspect. Even counting the narrower degree of specialization with Soviet officers, if he can't adequately remember the correct technical characteristics of different weapons to get by a civilian editor, his technical knowledge is very poor and he is no position to judge the combat readiness of anything but (maybe) his radio. Kazuaki Shimazaki 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You may mentally reject whatever you like, it doesn't make it true. As per the Publisher's warning, the book contains many errors, confusions and intentional changes, making it impossible to use it as a credible, verifiable reference. Maybe he wasn't talking about BMP-3 at all, maybe he was talking about BTR-333 or XYZ-4 or BMP-95E, or maybe he made it all up for more drama or as an excuse, no way to know. Therefore, this book should NOT be used as a reference for this article at all, unless you want the article to be a collection of anecdotes, rumors, assumptions, opinions... anything but facts.--C1010 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If it helps, the link currently provided includes this line: "Translation includes 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,18 parts of novel". This, combined with the general style of narration, suggests that it is almost certainly a story written based on his experience in Chechenya, with an unknown amount of fabrication and exaggeration.
I didn't put any weight on that word when I read it, since it's written by someone to whom English is a second language. They may well have chosen the word improperly, since one meaning of novel is simply a book.
He did do well enough to translate the rest of the chapters, did he? Kazuaki Shimazaki 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course, even if it was a memoir, this can happen as well). The rest of what I write will proceed on the assumption he's writing this as real stuff, not fiction. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Second, he talks about experimental BMP-3s, not serial production ones. See the original, if in doubt.

He says,
"So this battalion arrived on new, experimental BMP-3s." Experimental means "serving the ends of or used as a means of experiment (that is, test/trial)". Your idea that "experimental" is used to emphasize "new" doesn't make any sense to me, especially considering the quote above. If he wanted to emphasize new he would've said "completely new" or "brand new".--C1010 13:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you're inteprenting experimental in line with your view that they are untested/new from development, and I'm interprenting experimental to mean that its the first time they were using them (partially in use to emphasize "new"). I back up my view though because BMP-3s came into service in 1990 and Mironov got them in 1995 - I simply cannot see they are new *per se* when Mironov gets them. I don't see that you've successfully argued against that five year gap.
It's not my interpretation, it's Webster's dictionary definition of the word "experimental". I find it funny you're asking me to explain errors in Mironov's book. Look, it's YOUR reference, YOU claim it's reliable, not me. If BMP-3s "came into service in 1990" and Mironov claimed, in 1995, that they were "new, experimental" then it's just what the Publisher warns you about: the book contains many errors and must not be viewed as the actual, reliable report.--C1010 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
"Since we were under our full strength during the departure, we were complemented by one more battalion from Novosibirsk. According to the initial plan, we had to complete all preparations by autumn and depart for Tadzhikistan for integrating into the 201[st] division or some peacekeeping force; anyhow, to fight for God knows what or who. So this battalion arrived on new, experimental BMP-3s."
My reading of this is that the word experimental is to emphasize the "new". It is not meant to indicate the vehicle ITSELF was experimental; indeed, it could not be, because no experimental unit is manufactured in large numbers and distributed to field units for use in combat. Also, of couse, the BMP-3 passed from testing to full use in combat units in 1990, and the events in question are in 1995. There is simply no way the BMP-3s were *themselves experimental*. Toby Douglass 19:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
In Russia, many items of a particular system can be produced before it officially enters service. As one example, the A-50 Mainstay started regular production ~1984 and only fully accepted ~1989. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Further, if the vehicles had been in full service for five years, it is unlikely such major problems were not discovered by anybody. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
That I dispute - this is the Russian Army, massively corrupt and brutually uncaring, being "supported" by a massively corrupt and inefficient industry. I think it entirely likely that the BMP-3 was a dog and it simply wasn't fixed.
I think you are allowing your disdain for the Russian Army (though somewhat justified, I'd agree) to tilt your views regarding the probabilities. However, the BMP-3 had been extensively tested [1]. Furthermore, if failures of such devastating extent as reported by Mironov existed, it would be hard to explain how they managed to get other countries like the UAE to purchase it after evaluation several years before Chechenya (sure, some problems did occur in UAE service, but hardly of Mironov's magnitude). Kazuaki Shimazaki 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Third, in one of his interviews Mironov said that his book should not be used as a technical reference, for he may have gotten some technical details wrong.

I find it unlikely he would have mis-remembered such large matters. You don't mistakenly remember that the BMP-3 can't fire on the move and the gun jams after the first round. Toby Douglass 19:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
See the Publisher's foreword to the Russian edition of the book or my comments above. --C1010 13:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you are confounding the deliberate changing of names and places with the idea of the material being actually factually *inaccurate*. Mironov fought and rode with BMP-3s. I do not think he would have mistakenly thought they could not fire or work when in fact they could.

Forth, I think it's wrong to include all kind of speculations about the reason for equipment failures, especially considering the above. We simply do not know.--C1010 03:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

SPECULATIONS!? it's a PRIMARY SOURCE. It is PRECISELY what we should include. We can also add comments regarding the material, but excluding a first hand source? the idea is crazy!
See my comments above. --C1010 13:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, I consider your revert improper. You've fully removed, for example, information about the gun jamming (while retaining the computer problems!) - and strongly downplayed the extent of the problems Mironov reports. This is wrong, since it is in fact filtering and distorting the primary source information. What Mironov says needs to be reported in full. Comments can then be added.
I have to disagree. Please read my comments above. --C1010 13:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I await your timely reply before making further edits. Toby Douglass 19:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Au contraire, Primary Sources are potentially highly suspect, especially with a conflict of interest involved. The vehicle has been in service for 5 years, so as you said it is probably not so new and experimental. Yet he and his fellow officers could not make the BMP work. It is either him or the BMP. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Mironov is writing about an armoured fighting vehicle; all the troops can do is at best put it in its original, intended state. If then it fails to work, what else can they do? their efforts would only fix the vehicle if it were defective from its original state, since they would be capable of maintenance work. The BMP-3 entered service in 1990. Mironov used it in 1995. Mironov found that it didn't work; given that it's a vehicle fully in service with the army, this must mean - as he said - that the design was broken.
What I suggest is that I put in Mironov quote, and point out that the BMP-3 was accepted into service in 1990, had the problems described in 1995, and that over a decade has since passed and these problems may have been fixed. Toby Douglass 11:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It's my firm opinion that "Combat Record" section should be removed for now, until we get more credible and reliable references. The only reference we have so far was written by a specialist in Communication Equipment (not BMPs or infantry operations) and the Publisher warns that the book contains many errors, confusions, intentional changes and must not be viewed as the actual report. Thus, this reference is not credible or reliable or verifiable and should not be used.--C1010 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
And I'm saying that they couldn't put it in its "original, intended" state. The BMP-3 was actually built rather conservatively. To take one of Mironov's targets, the sights - they are old, rather tested models. The commander's sight is the TKN-3, which is used since the T-62 [2]. The gunner's 1K13 sight is slightly newer, but the AT-10 it supports went into service in 1983 (so the sight must have too), and it was considered sufficiently old hat that it was exported to East Germany for upgrading T-55s [3] before it was assimilated by West Germany. The stabilizer was but a modification of the BMP-2's 2E52.
So, at least some of the equipment mentioned is old, tested hat. The vehicle was extensively tested over several years, with teething problems that were being ground out and no devastating problems. The vehicle was developed in the last era of the Soviets - who if inefficient, at least had raw resources. And it had no devastating flaws for its importers. So, major design problem = low probability.
Against that I look at the men. While the BMP-3 borrows a lot from older stuff (and thus may be little technical challenge for a tank officer), it is still sophisticated compared to the BMP-1 or -2 used by the motor-rifle troops. Add that to the fact the platoon and company commanders of the suspect battalion are relatively new, many of whom are post-Soviet vintage (thus very poorly trained) ... the conscripts doing some of the day-to-day light stuff are even worse off ... the objective factors line up in such a way that human error is much more likely to be predominant over hardware error.
That's why I say it is the BMP-3 or Mironov (and his fellow officers). If the BMP-3 was a pristine machine, they have only themselves to blame for the massive losses they took. So, conflict of interest, and the objective factors IMO aren't on their side.
  • In conclusion, I suspect what really happened was like this: if BMP-3s were brought into action, they may have some teething problems (this will be their combat debut), which may even have caused the deaths of some. Mironov is so bitter about it that he exaggerates the problems. But being so technically unqualified he can't even get past his civilian editor, he exaggerates too far and creates a low-probability case. Thus the current statement is probably the accurate one. Kazuaki Shimazaki 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/m/p/Talk%7EBMP-3_b9da.html"