"How to Use a BMP-3 in Assault?" Topic

Does anybody have info on how to use the BMP-3 in assault it just looks too strange to be useful.
The 100mm gun and 30mm co-axe is a bit weird especially as the gun can fire a ATGW and why the 100mm gun needs a 4000m range seems a bit strange, a lot of loss of yeild when you need it close in. And the two bow guns seem a bit odd. They require two dismounts to fire, so that leaves only 5 dismounts, or the two bow gunners have to get out in front, that not been considered a good idea, the BMP-1 recognized the advantage of getting out the back as did the OT64. Yet here we have the latest Russian IFV where just under half the Dismounts have to get out the front.
Anyboy have info on how it was all supposed to come together? Paul and I are at a loss.

YouTube link

Well, I would not call a car that has been in service since 1987 the newest)))
I see it for myself as a good airborne combat vehicle. It has the possibility of airborne landing with a parachute, amphibious, good weapons, allowing the landing force to fight enemy tanks.
According to the reviews of those who operated it in combat conditions (Chechnya and Ukraine), it is mainly used as a light tank.

Has any BMP-3 ever been deployed into a hot zone via airdrop? BMD is the airdropable IFV.

A large calibre gun firing HE is useful, and its ATGM capability is an asset against heavy armour. Multi-use main guns have been part of the Russian arsenal for decades. The 30mm autocannon covers the other bases.

In Ukraine, the Ukies have used them and BTRs during an assault. The infantry squad follows staying behind the vehicle while it lays down suppressive fire. The problem is that on more than one occasion a Russian tank pulled up and put an APFSDS round into the front which exited the rear and killed most of the squad behind it.

The Russians are using them to back up infantry assaults around Bakhmut but they get destroyed by 155mm artillery.

Wolfhag

Perhaps both sides need reminding that IFVs aren't tanks…

+1 Robert! Please tell the Western media the same.

Jim Webster's Hell and Uncivil Disorder has a neat concept where every armored vehicle is an MGIAT! (My God It's A Tank!). To a guy with a rifle, a BMP-3 might as well be a tank. That said, I certainly understand that BMPs aren't technically tanks.

Robert Johnson, in real life – never.

BMP-3 was originally designed as suitable for airborne landing. But with such a landing, she had problems with the chassis. For this, the project was finalized to BMD-4. The BMP-3 has now remained in service with the air assault units, as intended for air transportation (without parachute landing). She is also in service with the Marine Corps.
But conceptually, it remains a combat vehicle, including for the fight of paratroopers with enemy tanks.

In my opinion, this was a wrong concept. As in general, the calculation for parachute landing in the conditions of modern air defense. This will only work in the context of the use of nuclear weapons.

Extra Crispy +1 Not really a great idea.

Cuprum2 Its there newest! In the Special Operation they wanted more BMP-2 but the only running production line is BMp-3 so newest.

Wolfhag, was that the "Tiny" 5 man squad behind or the 7 Man squad and two wasted Bow MG's with no gunners.

So it really as poorly designed as it seems.

I seem to recall that the original design brief for the PT-76 called for an airdrop capability with crew in place ready to roll. Isby? reported that on the first and last practice drop the tank left a considerable crater, and the crew were mince. Cold War rhetoric? Possibly…

Not certainly in that way. On the basis of the PT-76, an airborne self-propelled gun ASU-85 was created:
link

I have not heard of attempts to parachute the PT-76.

But unexpectedly I found an article where it is directly indicated that the BMD-3 is actually the development of the idea of ​​an airborne landing tank for the Airborne Forces, which explains a lot (automatic translation):

link

UshCha,
Wolfhag, was that the "Tiny" 5 man squad behind or the 7 Man squad and two wasted Bow MG's with no gunners.

The account I was given is that there was a squad of about 10 guys behind the vehicle. Infantry ride inside and outside the APCs. That same tactic most likely worked at other times when the Russians did not have a tank nearby. The infantry needs heavy weapons like 14mm and 23mm direct fire when assaulting trenches in the woods. I guess you take your chances and hope for the best.

Vehicles are designed for a specific purpose and there are many trade-offs. An APC is not necessarily a "bad design". Any vehicle being used in a way it was not intended to be used will generally result in a poor outcome. The Abrams is a great tank but not designed for urban warfare. If you use it in urban warfare expect poor results.

I think the idea of a "Battle Taxi" was a WWII concept and when the Maneuver Warfare strategists of the Cold War looked at the issue as a personnel transport vehicle that could keep up with tanks, like the Abrams.

A perceived engagement against the Cold War Russians would most likely have the US outnumbered 3-1 or more. So if the personnel carrier is accompanying the tanks it's not a bad idea for them to have a long-range stand-off ATGM like the TOW to help even the odds. However, the wrong tactics (using them like tanks) or poor intel will get them killed quickly.

Also, under ideal conditions (no enemy AT weapons) in an assault, the Bradley can provide excellent fire support for dismounted infantry. I think the Bradley acquitted itself pretty well in the Gulf Wars as it was part of the Combined Arms Maneuver Warfare concept, not by itself.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag So the Russians have given up one of the major tenets of armored infantry, protection from shell splinters. There is only space in the back for 5 men the dismout count is max 7 if the Bow gunners get out. making the bow guns just a waste of space and weight. With 10 behind then 3 guys must have been sat on the top. They will not get through the artillery barrage. Even in WW2 the prime use of APC's was to get the troops through the artillery. So it would appear the the BMP-3 either sucks or the Russians have given up protecting their troops as they move up to the assault, which in modern warfare seems daft. You just put a cheap barrage of light artillery for the BMP-3 to drive through and you get rid of some 30% of the infantry dead easy as they are on the outside!!

Desant has been a Russian tactic since WWII. Surely you know this?

The Soviet Union was always willing to sacrifice troops in wartime. The problem Putin has is that Russia isn't at war with Ukraine by his decree.

Do you see the dichotomy?

Well, in addition to the production of the BMP-3, there is also an active modernization of the BMP-1 and BMP-2.

The BMP-3 was put into service long before Putin came to power. In addition, it must be borne in mind that at that time everyone believed that there would be no major wars with an equivalent enemy, and "small wars" with a poorly equipped enemy would become the main type of hostilities.

Video of the operation to clear the forest belt by the Russian assault group on the BMP-3 with the support of tanks. As far as you can see, the infantry takes cover on the armor with open hatches, like shields.

link

UshCha,
Wolfhag So the Russians have given up one of the major tenets of armored infantry, protection from shell splinters.

I doubt it.

There is only space in the back for 5 men the dismout count is max 7 if the Bow gunners get out. making the bow guns just a waste of space and weight. With 10 behind then 3 guys must have been sat on the top. They will not get through the artillery barrage.

I've seen guys riding on top in videos, I doubt if they would during an assault under artillery fire unless they were surprised. I'm unsure of the planned Russian tactics with 5-7 man squads/teams but I'm sure they had something in mind.

Tactics: PDF link
It appears tanks led the way followed up by BMPs who can support the tanks with their ATGM and engage enemy infantry and light vehicles with their gun.

Even in WW2 the prime use of APC's was to get the troops through the artillery. So it would appear that the BMP-3 either sucks or the Russians have given up protecting their troops as they move up to the assault, which in modern warfare seems daft. You just put a cheap barrage of light artillery for the BMP-3 to drive through and you get rid of some 30% of the infantry dead easy as they are on the outside!!

Yes in WWII that was the idea. I think the tactics have changed with the IFV types being designed to accompany the tanks and fight during a breakthrough.

Any vehicle can perform poorly if not used the right way. The BMP-3 is very similar to the Bradley in armament with both having ATGMs. The Russian assault was supposed to outnumber the enemy 3-1 or better with overwhelming artillery support. If so their opponents would probably be focusing their tank fire on the tanks leaving the BMP free or engaging enemy IFV or tanks with their ATGMs. The Bradleys did well accompanying the Abrams and the BMP would probably do as well under the same conditions.

The problem I see in Ukraine is that neither side can consolidate a large armor formation without being detected and hit by accurate artillery. This forces both sides to use small unit tactics of only a few vehicles. In the open, you get picked off easily. In the woods, you get ambushed by infantry.

Ukraine is not an ideal war for large armored formations. The new ATGMs like the Javelin and NLAW seems to be turning all armored vehicles into crap. Both sides are being forced to use APC and IFV to lead infantry attacks in the woods putting them in range of RPGs, not the ideal tactic to use.

UshCha, what would an IFV look like if you designed it?

Wolfhag

youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

A classic. Completely false, but a classic.

Wolfhag I would lean to a properly designed APC reflecting the IDF's Achzarit

link

Basically a Heavy APC who's one and only Job is to get its infantry to where they need to go as safe as possible, hang around and take them back when needed. Perun's article on IFV's is interesting and notes that infantry need t to get where they are needed fast AND get them out fast when the enemy realize they have lost and try and eliminate them on the position they just lost.

A SFMG for defense is a good idea but fundamentally you want dedicated fire support vehicles to protect it and the troops while get on with the job. It needs Battle Management System (BMS) and observation gear that can spot but minimizes its own exposure. Also it needs close support, Now that can either be Tanks again with a decent BMS to with artillery standing by to support with accurate fires. Or if that is not available then a Terminator type vehicle but to me that is a sub-optimal solution adopted by a second rate technology power like Russia who clearly do not have modern decent BMS and accurate well trained artillery.

Let's go back to your original question:
Does anybody have info on how to use the BMP-3 in assault it just looks too strange to be useful.

The BMP is a 1960s Cold War design as part of a combined arms war against NATO in Europe. I forget the exact info but in Europe, there is a river running north and south about every 20-25 miles that needs to be crossed with the assumption that NATO has destroyed the bridges. That's why the BMP can swim across and their tanks have snorkeling gear.

The Soviet military leadership saw any future wars as being conducted with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. A new design, like the BMP, combining the properties of an armored personnel carrier (APC) and a light tank would allow infantry to operate from the relative safety of its armoured, radiation-shielded interior in contaminated areas and to fight alongside it in uncontaminated areas. It would increase infantry squad mobility, provide fire support to them, and also be able to fight alongside main battle tanks.

The current BMP-3 is supposed to be very comparable to the Bradley IFV. However, the IFV does have many limitations – it's not a tank. You need the right tactics to make it successful, just like any other weapons system. That includes the Bradley.

Because of the danger of mines, it's not unusual to have the infantry riding on the top, including US APCs.

With the advent to top attack ATGMs like the Javelin, it seems all armored vehicles are going to be "crap" as you say. At least until someone comes out with an effective kinetic kill self-defense system.

The Russians have the Shtora-1 IR ATGM defense system on their T-90s to defeat laser-guided missiles and rangefinders. However, ATGM gunners have learned to defeat this by aiming just away from the tank, and at the last second the gunner moves the laser aim onto the target so the Shtora does not have enough time to defeat it. It cannot engage threats over 25 degrees in elevation either.

The IDF Achzarit is an excellent vehicle designed for the needs of the Israeli army. It would not fit the requirements of the Russian army and they both hold the same number of infantry. The Achzarit would not perform any better than the BMP in Ukraine and has the same weakness in their roof armor. The Russians have many spare T-55 hulls but have decided not to use them as a heavy APC.

I have some friends that have been in Bakhmut for over 3 months doing SigInt and FO for Ukrainian artillery. The accuracy of the new 155mm guns means no armored vehicle is safe, including the Abrams. They all have a weakness on their track and suspension that a 155mm round landing within 25m is most likely going to disable the running gear, you do not need a direct hit or penetration. They have a system that can get accurate rounds on the target within one minute, including the time of flight. It's not unusual for their team to knock out 6-12 armored vehicles every day with just artillery. There is nowhere to hide with drones in the air. However, I question the Russian tactics.

Study the Russian tactics and how they expected to use them in Europe and you'll get a better idea of their use. The Egyptians were also fairly successful with BMP hiding behind sand dunes and firing the ATGM at their tanks. Also, the successful tactics of the Bradley in the mid-east should translate to the Russian BMPs too.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag, the point is, there is sound logic in sitting behind a sand dune and shooting missiles. However is it sensible to risk mounted troops to return fire when they have no contribution to make. As they say "Jack of all trades, master of none". It would be cheaper to have a small vehicle to shoot missiles while keeping the troops safe elsewhere. Note for whatever reason the BMP-3 is the newest Russian IFV/APC. It's employment still seems a bit hazy, a very de-focused none optimum design. A 4000m range stabilized gun on an infantry vehicle whose (presumably) prime purpose is to get troops where they need to be, or is moving troops to combat an almost incidental use, the primary use being a long range gun/missile platform?

UshCha,
There is a program called TankSharp that allows you to build a semi-realistic AFV.

link

Let's see what you can come up with.

Wolfhag

the primary use being a long range gun/missile platform

I was watching something the other day and the commentator suggested that the Russians were substituting T-62 for BMP-3 in 'an infantry support role'… No idea where they got that nugget from specifically.

The Oryx website records +230 BMP-3 and variants lost which is at least a third of Military Balance 2022 figures. So it makes sense if it had role that wasn't equivalent to BMP-1 or 2 that it would be filled by something different. Unless Russia are going back to descent tactics?

I recall the T-62s were going to the Russian separatists in the Donbas mainly for direct fire against infantry & buildings. It won't be very effective against other tanks.

Wolfhag

UshCha,
Have you had a chance to try out TankSharp? Let me know what you think of it.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag, I had a look but its just not something that appeals to me. I did like that it had some semblance of cost in it so you could at least work out a solution and imply cost benefit analyses, but to try out all the options to iterate to a plausible solution looked too time consuming to be of interest too me. There are only so many hours in the day for war gaming and all are committed at the moment.

Late to the party here. Russian tactics have been based upon closing to contact as quickly as possible for a long time. Back in the 1980's/90's Infantry would dismount at around 1,000 metres from the enemy position and form a fighting line ahead of the IFVs with about 400 metres between them. The IFVs were tasked with providing fire support to the infantry assault. Ideally the attack was led by tanks in a line about 100 metres ahead of the dismounted infantry.

In that situation frontal dismount makes more sense than top hatch or rear door dismount. The heavy weapons make fire support sense too. What I don't know is how Russian infantry close assaults currently work though.

Elenderil- That still looks a long way for infantry to walk through artillery fire. Maybe vast losses are acceptable, particularly if you have not spent much money on training them.

I think that the Idea was that Russian artillery had suppressed the NATO artillery and that the infantry advanced under a heavy smoke screen both ahead and covering their flanks. In the current unpleasantness Russian infantry seems to include ‘disposable' troops whose job is to lead the line and unmask Ukrainian defensive positions!

The current Russian thinking (according to online articles from RUSI and Rand) is that there should not be a reliance on a hard front line. Instead they look to strike in the entire depth of the enemy force using artillery, missiles and air/drone strikes. At the same time localised concentrations of ground forces strike at selected targets. All of which presumes that the opposition is not able to concentrate on the gaps in the a Russian assaults. Personally I'm not convinced that this would work in a peer to peer conflict. Neither does it help understand how the BMP3 fits into the equation other than it wasn't designed to operate under these new concepts.

That still looks a long way for infantry to walk through artillery fire. Maybe vast losses are acceptable, particularly if you have not spent much money on training them.

Yes, it is a long way to walk. Ideally, the Russian artillery has silenced the defending artillery. With the infantry advancing in front of the BMP they can identify targets for the BMP to engage and suppress infantry tank hunter teams before they can engage the BMP. Without the infantry leading the way and screening the BMP the infantry rides inside. That severely decreases the BMP Situational Awareness and makes them more vulnerable to anti-tank weapons. It's all a trade-off.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag – Interesting It assumes almost complete dominance of the enemy artillery possibly, even very fast response to enemy mortars. Seems like they never had counter battery detection resources or the capability to respond fast enough to make that goal even close to achievable. Possibly in asymmetric warfare like Syria it may have worked, clearly in Ukraine they were shown to be very lacking.

UshCha,
Ukraine is turning out to be a completely different combat environment. Both sides have tried the traditional large combined arms attacks and they have failed with extensive causalities.

In a battalion or greater size attack, you need an assembly area to gather the forces for up to 2 days. These very swiftly attract attention and get hit with an accurate artillery barrage before they have a chance to deploy for the attack.

Both sides have resorted to numerous small unit attacks of less than a dozen men supported by one or two tanks or APCs with the objective of taking a trench line or building. If the attack succeeds they reinforce it.

The Ukrainians use mostly 82mm mortars and automatic grenade launchers to suppress Russian units in a trench line when they attack. They'll use an APC to lead the way and provide suppressive fire with the infantry following behind and firing to the side.

Ukrainian FOs will use a drone to observe a spot where the Russians are slowly sending in guys a few guys at a time for an attack. They have an artillery unit on standby with the target's GPS coordinates. When the Russians get ready to move out they are in by an intense barrage. Guys that survive will run back to their HQ and be tracked by a drone. When he gets to the HQ that is taken under fire. The Russians play the same game except they have more arty and rounds. It's extremely hard to execute a large assault.

The tactics in the Cold War Manuals are not working. Drones, EW, thermals, and accurate artillery fire have changed everything.

Wolfhag