"The Russian BMD-4M airborne fighting vehicle" Topic

Russian airborne troops have completed military trial tests with BMD-4M airborne fighting vehicle.

"The Russian airborne troops have completed military trial tests with latest generation of airborne infantry fighting vehicle BMD-4M. The tests included maneuverability, air mobility, floating and firing. Next year, the Russian paratroopers should receive the first batch of 64 vehicles. In August 2014, the Russian army has taken delivery of the first prototype of BMD-4M.

Designed to replace the old BMD-1 and BMD-2 airborne infantry fighting vehicle, the BMD-4M is an upgraded variant of the BMD-3 airborne combat vehicle, and is expected to provide improved protection and firing power for Russian airborne troops.

Russian airborne troops expect to receive more than 1,500 BMD-4M armoured assault vehicles by 2025 as well as more than 2,500 BTR-MD Rakushka armoured transporters across various modifications…"

Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Article says the 100mm gun has a 30mm mounted alongside it (same as BMP3?), but I don't see it in the picture, only the 7.62 co-ax. 1500 seems a lot in the current climate, even over 10 years. Still, a nice looking vehicle.

"1500 seems a lot in the current climate, even over 10 years."

Putin wants Alaska.

Other reports say 1000, how many that are actually delivered remains to be seen. Given that the VDV plans to rearm 4 divisions as well as 4 independent brigades they would need a a large number of BMD-4s even though the current VDV divisions are smaller than back in Soviet times.

No gold there now, and oil is not really that profitable at the moment. We also have quite a lot of our own frozen wasteland.

PS In Fallout series Alaska was captured by Chinese ;)

Jarrovian, the 30mm is immediately to the right of the 100mm, hard to see in that pic but you can see it here:

link

I don't see 1,000-1,500 of these being produced.

The Russians keep coming out with grandiose rearmament plans that then don't eventuate.

If all their statements over the last few years were accomplished, they'd have a viruatlly whole new navy, a sizeable amount of new tanks and IFVs and a much more modern air force.

They'll be driving over a frozen Bering Strait any time now. Putin has the hots for Sara Palin.

Armament looks similar to the BMP-3. In wargaming terms I think it's an interesting challenge in recreating this sort of vehicle is whether or not each weapon meets its intended battlefield role. In other words, the rules should provide a statistical reason for each weapon to exist in the context of such a heavily armed vehicle.

- 100mm gun (weapon of choice against infantry targets in hard cover)

- Tube launched ATGM (weapon of choice against MBTs)

- 30mm autocannon (weapon of choice against infantry in lighter/medium cover, soft vehicles, light armored vehicles, low flying helos)

- co-ax MG and secondary MG (weapons of choice against infantry in the open and to suppress targets with speculative fire)

For example, if a game allows an ATGM to be as effective as an MG and/or autocannon against infantry in the open then you might have a problem. There are certainly many shades of gray here but if rules create a situation in which an ATGM or 100mm gun makes lighter weapons completely superfluous in all situations then they sort of miss the mark. There are reasons for this sort of vehicle to mount such very different weapons and, at a certain tactical level, rules such reflect those reasons.

I think gamers really enjoy the color of picking and choosing weapons for certain targets. It's why we miniatures gamers generally don't use completely abstract "attack factor vs defense factor" combat models. It's even better when the game provides a physical link between the weapon being represented and game actions (e.g. rolling lots of dice for an MG shot but the chances of a kill vs infantry in a building being low while rolling fewer dice for a tank gun shot but with better chances of a kill vs infantry in a bunker).

Vehicles such as the BMP-3 and BMD-4 provide really good bench marks when designing and testing tactical wargame rules and modeling the differences between weapon systems. At higher levels of representation then a more abstract representation would be appropriate.

@ TBeyer,
thanks for that, that's a nice video too.

Glad you enjoyed the article boys.
Agree, nice video!

Amicalement
Armand

Looks like the Russians are really pushing the "different gun for every target" concept.

That 100mm gun is going to be quite ugly to face, since even the farthest-out US concepts aren't going to anything bigger than a 50mm Supershot (50x330mm round, same overall size as 35mm NATO).

ATGMs for long range work, HE-Frag for digging out infantry, 30mm for light armor and softskins, and MGs for infantry in the open.

ATGMs for long range work, HE-Frag for digging out infantry, 30mm for light armor and softskins, and MGs for infantry in the open.

Geez, did they remember to leave room for the infantry? Sounds like the entire interior is going to be filled with ammo. Should make for some impressive secondary explosions though…

In wargaming terms I think it's an interesting challenge in recreating this sort of vehicle is whether or not each weapon meets its intended battlefield role. In other words, the rules should provide a statistical reason for each weapon to exist in the context of such a heavily armed vehicle.

In the full Sabresquadron rules we're testing we assume that the crew is using the most suitable weapon for the target so an MG against troops in the open is similar in effect to using the 30mm against troops in light cover and the 100mm against troops in heavy cover. There are disadvantages to firing an ATGM when another weapon would be as good or better. However wargame rules shouldn't seek to justify designs that may be overkill in armament and, as Blackhorse MP points out, leave little room for supplying each weapon.

sabresquadron.com/index.html

Geez, did they remember to leave room for the infantry?

Wiki claims there's actually space for one MORE trooper than the BMD3, total of 5 passengers!

Sounds like the entire interior is going to be filled with ammo. Should make for some impressive secondary explosions though…

Yeah, that's the bad part of Russian design. But after the lessons of the battle of Grozny, there may be some better ammo stowage protection in the newest vehicles.

Maybe we can expect to see some pics of the inf riding on top of the vehicles like the GI's did with the M113's in 'Nam(not that that would help much).

I've always had a fondness for Russia's approach to mechanizing their airborne troops. Far greater operational mobility and firepower than the light infantry used by Western nations, and still decently deployable. I'm sure their protection sucks but if your light tanks/APCs run into something that can kill them easily, you probably dropped your airborne troops in the wrong place.

The US tried to replicate air-deployable light forces and we ended up with Stryker brigades: basically an improved BTR that can actually survive IEDs. A nice addition for urban COIN work but we kinda missed the mark…

Weapon of choice is hard in wargames as we do not limit ammo. For curiosity I looked at our set MG and it comes out like this. for anti infantry

AT missiles hopeless aginst troops in open or hard cover. Great against very hard targets which are compact( bunkers etc.

Inf in open or soft cover – Sustained fire MG is best suppress and kill (lots of rounds and effective)

HMG worse than SFMG in open and soft cover – Same as SFMG in hard cover -Less rounds but better penetration. Good against light armour targets

IFV gun Lots of 20mm to 50mm. Number of rounds vs impact gives same anti infanrty rating constant over range of bore sizes. Best at hard cover or better. Anti armour varies as a function of avilable data. Typicaly bigger guns beter anti armour.

Tank gun Best kill rate with infantry in hard cover but inferior suppression rate against all(less rounds to play with). Worst at inf in open

Therefore BMP3 or 4 or would have some gains in our rules. At any one time only 1 gun can be fired so its not a super weapon.