>>I have looked up a lot of stuff about the BMP-3, that is apparently quite a market success due to it's impressive armament. I still do not understand where TF are this thing's engine and fuel tank(s) and whether or not it has a ramp in the back like the other IFV's, and where and how TF do you wedge in the infantrymen that are suppose to validate it's claim to being an IFV, and not just an assault gun that can swim.<< My recollection is that the BMP-3s engine is in the rear, and that to mount and dismount the vehicle the infantry have to use a combined roof-hatch/rear door assembly (since otherwise they would have to crawl over the engine on their bellies to get out the rear of the vehicle). It does not appear, in my opinion, to have been built by someone who gave any thought to dismounting the vehicle under fire (or bailing out if it takes a catastrophic hit . . .), at least not as a first, second, third or even fourth priority. Supposedly the Soviet tactics planned for the thing was that the infantry complement and vehicles would constitute two seperate manuever elements, with the BMP-3s functioning as a mobile reserve/counter-attack force in the defense. In the offense it looks like it would be a repeat of the 1930s era "coffin for seven brothers" if it takes a hit . . .

"The US 25mm is a better gun than the Soviet 30mm" Why do you say that? I was under the impression the 30mm cannon on the BMP2 was one of the better cannons fielded. It is the same cannon as used on their gunships. Even back in the 50's Russian 30mm's on their Mig19's were superior to British and French weapons.

Eh, well the choice is between the BMP & Bradley. The original question did not include all those other neat vehicals. & with these hypothetical third rate armys a day or two long shock attack is all I'd expect out of my mech unit anyway. Everything else is likely to go to s..t by then anyway. Of course for a first rate army I'd go with the Bradley. With a second rate military I'd examine the economics of buying used BMPs and reworking them into something suitable. The Bradley may turn out to be a better buy but its worth a look.

>>Why do you say that? I was under the impression the 30mm cannon on the BMP2 was one of the better cannons fielded. It is the same cannon as used on their gunships. Even back in the 50's Russian 30mm's on their Mig19's were superior to British and French weapons.<< Superior optics, superior fire control and superior anti-armor performance when firing M919 APDS ammunition. I also vagely recall being told during initial Bradley training that the 25mm is a more accurate weapon, with lower dispersion than the 2A42 (though neither is suitable for sniping anything smaller than a truck or AFV).

"Superior optics, superior fire control and superior anti-armor performance when firing M919 APDS ammunition. I also vagely recall being told during initial Bradley training that the 25mm is a more accurate weapon" I wasn't really reffering to optics and fire control but the cannon itself. I do not believe the American 25mm weapon will have greater armour piercing capability than the Russian 30mm weapon, given that what supposodly makes the Russian weapon so good is its high velocity (ergo the cannons use in gunships). Although I wouldnt be surprised if America fielded more up to date munitions, but again, tht is not the cannons fault. I wouldn't know about accuracy.

>>I wasn't really reffering to optics and fire control but the cannon itself. I do not believe the American 25mm weapon will have greater armour piercing capability than the Russian 30mm weapon, given that what supposodly makes the Russian weapon so good is its high velocity (ergo the cannons use in gunships). << I don't know. Anthony G. William's website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/index.htm) is a pretty reputable source for technical/ballistics data. He lists velocity of the US 25mm HEI-T round as 1100 mps versus 860-960 mps for the 2A42's HE round. He does not list information for APDS, but does provide a link to the a Russian Ammunition website that includes info on 30mm projectiles (http://www.geocities.com/russianammo/30mm.html#14) that lists the MV for 30mm improved APDS as 1120 mps. US M791 25mm APDS-T is 1345 mps, M919 25mm APDS-T is 1420 mps, per the Global Security website (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/25.htm).

Because of the DU composition of the 919 round, do they even issue them in Iraq today? Can't really say I see much of a need for the excellent effects DU offers against iron-based armor (I think pyrophoric is the word). And I would think the HEI rounds would be better against civilian vehicles/VBIEDs more than the AP round. And judging solely on a shell's internal volume, I would think the 30mm gun would have a greater explosive effect, even if only marginal (an extra ounce of filler could make a difference, depending on targets). However, there still is the unknown variable of how capable is Russian explosives technologies. The Bradley's armament isn't really the most ideal for infantry support: TOWs (a primarily anti-armor weapon, even though there are modified ones now for general purpose work) are far more costly, and fewer are carried, than the BMP-3's 100mm ammunition (40 rounds, which lands its punch somewhere between an 81mm mortar and 105mm howitzer shell). The autocannon is more anti-vehicle focused, so 25mm or 30mm doesn't really make much difference in taking down buildings and fortified positions, and neither are very accurate for anti-personnel use (but a 100mm HE-FRAG would be excellent). http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/ http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bmp-3/ http://www.enemyforces.com/apc/bmp3.htm As far as whose optics are better: the pre-IBAS BFVs (using the 1980s tech BSA optics) certainly would've surpassed anything on the BMP-1 & 2, but with France's SAGEM (builders of Le Clerc's optics) assisting in the -3's latest optics, I wouldn't be so quick to suggest that the Bradley's is superior (fire control computer definitely goes to the upgraded BFV). They could well be very closely matched, especially considering weapons ranges: TOWs on BFVs reaching 3750m, and the 100mm gun launcher of the BMP-3 reaching to 4000m. I'd have to see a shoot-off to fully agree the BFV has superior overall firepower capability (infantry support more than anti-armor, IAW current US SOP in Iraq), but again, it mostly comes down to crew proficiencies, something the US has excelled at for the last couple decades. Personally? I think the infantry-carrier role should be removed from the BMP-3 (perhaps giving it instead a reduced complement like the Cav BFVs and carry more ammo), and in effect it becomes the modern day equivalent of the WW2 Stuart light tank: an ideal recce/raider to harass flanks and open infantry, but not something you want to stare down heavy armor with. But if you know your adversary has heavy armor in the vicinity, you're going to want the Bradley's TOW capability. Not trying to be a pessimist here (but a smart @ss, definitely!), but I expect there will be considerable delays in the FCS, so BFVs will be expected to soldier on for another couple decades. I seriously hope the US gets smart and upguns them, at least with the harder-hitting Bushmaster Mk44 gun (30mm firing A-10 type ammo) as in the USMC AAAV/EFV, or better yet the 40mm gun (Bushmaster Super Forty or 40mm CTAI). And it would be interesting to see modularity reach into the vehicle's armament, in the form of how aircraft can carry different weapons: TOWs are often overkill, so how about a triple- or quad Javelin armored box launcher to swap out for the twin TOWs as situation dictates?

>>Because of the DU composition of the 919 round, do they even issue them in Iraq today? Can't really say I see much of a need for the excellent effects DU offers against iron-based armor (I think pyrophoric is the word). And I would think the HEI rounds would be better against civilian vehicles/VBIEDs more than the AP round.<< Don't know, possibly not, since M919, as you note, is primarily for killing AFVs, which, for better or worse, is sort of the strong point of the vehicle. I'd guess everyone currently in country over there runs HE heavy, in any case. >>And judging solely on a shell's internal volume, I would think the 30mm gun would have a greater explosive effect, even if only marginal (an extra ounce of filler could make a difference, depending on targets). However, there still is the unknown variable of how capable is Russian explosives technologies.<< The Russian Ammunition website I posted the link for earlier says the Russian HEI-T round contains 11 grams of HEI filler, while the non-tracer round contains 48.5 grams. US M792 is 32 grams of HEI filler. Not sure why the Russian tracer round has such a small amount of HE -- maybe a typo, or maybe the Russians really, really like the tracer content (it may be the latter, since the page mentions the round has a two stage tracer, first yellow then red, and since the round is also used for ADA). >>As far as whose optics are better: the pre-IBAS BFVs (using the 1980s tech BSA optics) certainly would've surpassed anything on the BMP-1 & 2, but with France's SAGEM (builders of Le Clerc's optics) assisting in the -3's latest optics, I wouldn't be so quick to suggest that the Bradley's is superior (fire control computer definitely goes to the upgraded BFV).<< The A3 Bradleys would still have a definite advantage over the BMP-3, I would think, since the M1A2SEP/Bradley A3/LRAS3 thermals are head and shoulders above anything used anywhere else in the world on an AFV. BMP-3 may have parity with A2s or even A2ODS, but assuming equal crew quality and tank friendly terrain with long fields of fire but cover here and there . . . Bradley A3 would likely acquire and kill further out than BMP-3 more times than not. >>Personally? I think the infantry-carrier role should be removed from the BMP-3 (perhaps giving it instead a reduced complement like the Cav BFVs and carry more ammo), and in effect it becomes the modern day equivalent of the WW2 Stuart light tank: an ideal recce/raider to harass flanks and open infantry, but not something you want to stare down heavy armor with.<< This is vaguely what the Soviets seem to have been thinking with the vehicle, from the little bit I've read about doctrine for it. Rather than carrying its infantry into the assault and dropping them on, or almost on, the objective, it would kick its dismounts out and then manuever while they remained relatively static. While it is not a bad concept (infantry cover vehicle with ATGM, vehicle covers infantry with cannons and MGs) it seems a bit screwy in terms of traditional Soviet doctrine. In any case, BMP-3 is like the rest of the BMP series. It has to short-crew the infantry squad to carry any appreciable load of ammo, gear, etc. for sustained operations . . . unlike the rest, it has to carry two guys minimum to man the bow-mounted PKMs, in addition to the traditional three man crew. You'd probably have a pretty good raider with a crew of 3+3 -- some dismounts for local security and peaking over the next hill, plus some ability to rotate crew if you were making long movements. Tended to work well on the M3A-Zeros I used to crew. >>Not trying to be a pessimist here (but a smart @ss, definitely!), but I expect there will be considerable delays in the FCS, so BFVs will be expected to soldier on for another couple decades. I seriously hope the US gets smart and upguns them, at least with the harder-hitting Bushmaster Mk44 gun (30mm firing A-10 type ammo) as in the USMC AAAV/EFV, or better yet the 40mm gun (Bushmaster Super Forty or 40mm CTAI).<< Even with FCS coming in on schedule (and like you, I have my doubts . . .), the M1s and M2s will be around for a long time. I suspect money will start getting pushed into them for upgrades once that starts to sink in (assuming our expenditures in the Middle East decrease some in the next few years), especially since the Brads can serve as testbed sort of vehicles for FCS components you can't put on Strykers . . . like improved guns. I'd put money on BAE putting together their 40mm CTA gun and a Bradley turret by the end of the decade as a proposed upgrade, though I don't know if DoD will go for it or not.

doggtag wrote: "TOWs are often overkill, so how about a triple- or quad Javelin armored box launcher to swap out for the twin TOWs as situation dictates?" They might be overkill, but they're a heckuva lot less expensive than Javelins. How 'bout a multi-pack of SRAW-MPV/MPIM rounds? Sure they only have an effective range of 5-600m when shoulder-fired, but the Brad's FCS should improve this considerably - maybe out to 1000m or more. This should be plenty for urban ops, especially when coupled with existing TOW-firing Brads.

->"How 'bout a multi-pack of SRAW-MPV/MPIM rounds? Sure they only have an effective range of 5-600m when shoulder-fired, but the Brad's FCS should improve this considerably - maybe out to 1000m or more. This should be plenty for urban ops, especially when coupled with existing TOW-firing Brads. " Congrats, B Smitty, for inadvertantly supporting my suggestion that a weapon in the class of the BMP-3's 100mm gun system (level of firepower per round) would be more favorable for infantry support...and it shoots out to 4000m or so. Cramped or not, I think crews would rather have the advantage of being able to repeatedly load the weapon under full protection, rather than having to pop the dorsal hatch to reload a clip of rockets with the turret/launch pod having to return to a specific position for several seconds to do so. Of course, I know that just then contradicts my suggestion for Javelins, but I still think the missiles would be primarily anti-armor rather than for breaching other targets. But then again, if the defense contractors would get their acts together on the APKWS II, it might fit several in a similar sized launch box, perhaps lined up in staggered columns like the SeaRAM missiles in their pods rather than a round launcher like the 7- and 19-cell systems carried by helos. And there we get a 10-12 pound warhead, which is only about 15-20 percent lighter than a TOW's anyway (just not in a good diameter for a HEAT round), but still plenty enough to outperform bursts of 25mm cannon fire for many targets. Only problem there is it could take over a minute to reload several rockets, precious time wasted if in the middle of a heated exchange. We could redesign the box launcher to be similar in concept to a miniaturized MLRS: fit two containers each with a TOW, or two containers each with 4 or 5 (just guessing based on diameters) APKWS rockets, or one of each. But that could complicate the load out of the vehicle (have to modify stowage racks to accomodate both weapons in their respected launch containers), and also take even more time to reload, considering how heavy a multiple round rocket pod would weigh... Come to think of it, the BFV has a complicated-enough turret already: we don't need to make it worse than it already is!