Comments by "David Himmelsbach" (@davidhimmelsbach557) on "Why the Russian Army BMP Vehicle is Worse than You Think" video.

The BMP was originally designed for atomic warfare. The boys were expected to be protected while tracking through devastated Europe that had no viable bridges. The gun ports were a morale boosting feature. The exhaust gases from AKs proved that they could not be used. BTW, the stink inside a BMP in warm weather is epic. The Soviets even had to limit the height of their BMP troops -- it's that tight inside. No-one could jump out the rear properly geared-up, either. (absolutely no back-packs) This was deemed okay, as dismounting was a last resort for BMP troops. A machine designed for atomic warfare, rapid advance, is today largely dead meat, roasted by Smart ATGMs. There is no cure. The Ukrainians are keeping theirs as taxis. They are still very handy for getting across rivers and lakes.
116
@no-nonseplayer6612 No. The unreliability of the M-16 was traced back to ammo production -- decades ago. It was never the gun, itself. The AK-47 became the AK-74 because the Soviets found that the 5.56 round WAS the superior killer. Armalite was right! The AK series has one consistent failing -- at combat ranges normally encountered -- it's too sloppy. Even seasoned, superior, talents can't achieve decent groupings. Whereas the M-16 family is pretty decent. Back on 9-11-2012, the fanatics armed with AK-47s were just slaughtered by US contract warriors at Benghazi. They were spraying and praying -- or praying and spraying.
6
@Clebardman In many ways, the BMP series chased German WWII designs for their recon troops. (panzer divisions, elite panzer-grenadier divisions.) These were elites above the rest -- and at first started out with mere motorcycles. (!) Then mark II panzers were added, with early half-tracks. When, and as available, full-on proper recon machines were employed. (There were never enough of these expensive beasts -- though they are commonly found from news reel footage of the time.) Since mark II panzers were too slow, it was not long before dedicated rubber-tired fighting machines were ginned up. As time passed, these babies were systematically up-gunned -- to the point of impracticality. (75mm PAK) It's of the latter character that the BMP-3 seems. The Russians seemed to have aped the Germans in up-gunning their machines -- while being unable to drop anything. Heh. You just have to figure that BMP-3s don't do anything well. Worse, the cabin size has not grown to match the growth of Russian conscripts. They're getting bigger every year. This aspect is so pronounced in Red China that Beijing gave up on its old tanks. The big kids couldn't fit inside anymore. Heh. (Troop size explains why American tanks have been so big for decades.) This kind of crazy over-engineering is seen in American war machines all the time. One is reminded of street musicians that try to play too many instruments at the same time.
3
@aroperator3998 I must recommend riding on top. The US Army found, in Vietnam, that riding inside the M-113 was a terrible idea. So, the boys just started riding on top. Since the number one risk was mines, even officers could see its merit. BMP interiors should only be used to haul gear. The troops should ride on top. (I'd add top-side soft seating, as a retro-fit.) It should never be conflated with an IFV. It's just a taxi -- that can swim. (BTW, don't load it up.) (Seal those impractical gun-ports.) (Employ only short drivers.)
3
@gloin10 Sweden bought them from Germany -- after the Wall came down -- and after unified Germany upgraded them. Then Sweden upgraded them further. Then they were sold on to a Czech firm -- for further touches. It's these machines that Berlin had to sign off on that are now headed to Kyiv.
3
@aroperator3998 I can't help but noting Russians riding atop their BMPs -- and much more -- right now -- in cold weather. Unlucky, you.
2
@SkorupaPancNaSkorCzl Since you brought this up, the 73mm gun on the BMP-1 was unique, AFAIK. It was a smooth-bore gun which used a unique hi-lo breech. The rounds were unique. They had a pin that held back the round to a bleed-plate base until the gun-cotton pressure built to a trigger amount. Then the pin would sever so the round could shoot out the tube. The base charge of the ammo was actually bigger than the bore of the tube. So you had a weird weapon with an over-built breech that fed gases into the acceleration tube at a spec'd, restricted rate resulting in a shockingly high acceleration -- considering the length of the weapon and its bore size. It was an attempt to provide anti-tank capability. Weird, considering Soviet combat doctrine and the Soviet's immense superiority in tank numbers. This weapon scheme has been abandoned as a dead end. Its rounds just had to be expensive to mass-produce. The American solution started with the M-2 machine gun (M-113) and has evolved up to 25mm rapid fire cannon (Bradley) -- and beyond, if I'm reading right.
1
@SkorupaPancNaSkorCzl During WWII/ the Great Patriotic War the Reds found out that it was a disaster when the troops confused ammo types with the same gross dimension -- say 76.2mm artillery shells versus 76.2mm mortar rounds. (I know that no such round exists. Just follow along.) So... Stalin decreed that each weapon type was to have a unique dimension --- so that even that was sufficient to correctly identify it. (An exception was made for GRAD /rockets. Those were impossible to get crossed around.) It's with this logic that the Soviets deliberately designed (down) the tube diameter of the BMP-1 to 73mm. Doing so merely heightened the design of the hi-lo gun scheme. (76 vs 73) Moscow was not thinking in terms of treaties -- as tank numbers never came up as negotiable issues. Atomic weapons were another matter all together, of course.
1