BMP-3 - The IFV with the firepower of a light tank

[WulfPack 1,693]

In the late 70ies - early 80ies, after combat analysis of the BMP-1 and BMP-2, it became apparent that they lacked sufficient firepower and armor to do the role they were designed for. These were the reasons why the Minister of Defense requested a new IFV be developed to meet the requirements of the modern battlefield. This is how the story of Object 688's development started. 

 

Intentionally for the development of the new machine, a team of young professionals, guided by the by one of the leading engineers V. A. Zinoviev. Due to the fact that the vehicle was not a modernization of the then in service BMP-1 or BMP-2, the main task was to develop a layout for it. The frontal arc was required to withstand hits from western IFVs, the side armor had to withstand hits from 12.7s. The main offensive weapons also had to have an increase in effectiveness. A significant increase in frontal protection put designers in a difficult spot, as traditionally IFVs have a frontally mounted engine that is protected by a thin armor plating. Such a layout allows you to make the IFV amphibious. Therefore, at the suggestion of the Chief Designer, it was decided to choose the layout typically used on tanks(rear mounted engine). However, it was soon found out that engine would cause problems for infantry entering and leaving. To resolve that problem, it was suggested that infantry would enter and exit from the sides(like on the BTR series). After a wooden mockup was built, it became clear that the doors were not wide enough(60 cm) to allow fast exiting and entering, even without the troops being fully loaded. Next it was proposed to allow the infantry to exit and enter over the engine,as on VDV IFVs. In the end, the latter option was decided to be the best option.

In 1981 the first prototype was constructed named Sample 602. What was unique about 602 was the externally mounted armament. The armament consisted of a 2A42 30-MM automatic cannon, AGS-17 30-MM grenade launcher, 2 9M113 ATGM launchers, and a PKT coaxial MG.

(Sample 602)

Spoiler

However the then Minister of Defense, stepped in and decided that the armament should increased further. After a long debate, they decided to replace the AGS-17 and 9M113 with a D-10T2S based 100-MM(2A48?). It was found out that 100-MM was too heavy and with it the IFV would be unable to swim and it was as a result dropped from the design. After a very short period, a new lightweight 100-MM(whose weight was only 230kg)  gun was developed specifically for the IFV. Together with the new gun, the vertical guidance could be increased to +60 degrees. 

In September 1987, the IFV would enter service with the Soviet Army under the designation BMP-3.

(Early BMP-3 with the "new" 100-MM)

Spoiler

 

Designation:-

BMP-3 Infantry Fighting Vehicle

Amount in service:

Around 500 are estimated to be in service with the Russian Federation 

Dimensions:-

Length: 23.4 feet

Length with gun forward: 23.6 feet

Height: 7.5 feet

Width: 10.8 feet

Crew: 3 (Driver, Gunner, Commander) 

Weight: 18.7 tons 

Protection:-

Spoiler

1 - upper frontal plate (18-MM of ABT-102); 2 - (60-MM of ABT-102); 3 - frontal view of the tower (16-MM of BT-70ІІІ + 70 mm air gap + 50-MM of ABT-102); 4 - turret roof (18-MM of ABT-102); 5 - turret rear (43-MM of ABT-102); 6 - hull roof (15-MM of ABT-102); 7 - hull rear (13-MM of ABT-102); 8 - hull floor (10-MM of AMG-6); 9 - hull side (43-MM of ABT-102) 10 - niche sheet (15-MM of ABT-102): 11 - lower hull side (43-MM of ABT-102); 12 - lower frontal part (10-MM BT-70SH + 70-MM air gap + 60-MM ABT-102)

Mobility:-

Engine: UTD-29 outputting 500hp

Top speed: 43.4 mph

Top speed in reverse: 12 mph

Top speed in the water: 6 mph

Firepower:-

100-MM 2A70 

Spoiler

Combat rate of fire: 10 rounds per minute

Maximum rate of fire: 15 rounds per minute

Ammunition: 

OF-32 HE-Frag

Muzzle velocity: 250 mps

Spoiler

9M117 ATGM

Maximum Penetration: 600mm

Maximum Speed: 370 meters per second

Average Speed: 300 meters per second

Guidance System: SACLOS

Spoiler

When using the 9M117 ATGM: 3-4 rounds per minute

Ammunition load: 22 rounds in the automatic loader and a further 18 stored outside the loader

A total of 8 9M117s can be carried

30-MM 2A72

Spoiler

Rate of Fire: 330 RPM

Ammunition Available:-

3UBR6 API 

Muzzle velocity: 960 mps

Penetration: 20-MM at 700 meters(at an angle 60 degrees) 

Spoiler

3UBR8 "Kerner" APDS

Muzzle velocity: 1100 mps

Penetration: 45-MM at 100 meters( at an angle of 60 degrees) 

Spoiler

3UOR6 HE-T

Muzzle velocity: 960 mps

Spoiler

3UOF8 HEI

Muzzle velocity: 960 mps

Spoiler

Ammunition load: 500 rounds

The 2A72 is capable is capable of switching ammunition types in the same fashion as the German Gepard

Both the 2A70 and 2A72 are stabilized on both planes 

3 7.62 PKTs 

Rate of fire: 750 rounds per minute

Ammunition load: 6,000 rounds

Automatic mode:-

Maximum horizontal guidance: 35 Deg/S

Maximum vertical guidance: 6 Deg/S

Semi Automatic Mode:-

Maximum horizontal guidance: 35 Deg/S

Maximum vertical guidance: 35 Deg/S

Maximum gun angles: -6-+60 

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

 =

 

 

Sources:

http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/vbtt_1991_bmp31.htm

https://topwar.ru/8580-obekt-688-basnya.html

http://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/1021275/Suvorov_-_Boevye_mashiny_pehoty_BMP-1,_BMP-2_i_BMP-3.html

http://warfiles.ru/show-29564-boevaya-mashina-desanta-tretya-chast-i.html

http://weaponwars.ru/bmp-3/25.html

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by WulfPack

[SAUBER_KH7 3,326]

Open for Discussion.

[Kocyra 5,742]

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 

Yes comrade.

(obj. 685 or 934 first pls)

[WulfPack 1,693]

40 minutes ago, SAUBER_KH7 said:

Open for Discussion.

Thank you.

20 minutes ago, F7UCutlass said:

(obj. 685 or 934 first pls)

Preferably yes. Added more gun performance if you were interested.

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

Eh...I think I'll pass on this one.  I might consider the BMP-1, however.

 

EDIT: I neglected to mention something about the BMP-1 earlier, in that while it's an IFV, it would have comparable firepower to another potential candidate for addition to War Thunder: the FV101 Scorpion (technically designated as a "reconnaissance vehicle", but it's a light tank in all but name - the BMP-1 would function similarly due to the absence of infantry in War Thunder)

Edited March 18, 2017 by Z3r0_

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

It's a late 80' vehicle and quite modern concept. ATGMs ok, powerful cannons on light vehicles ok, but those things combined. To me BMP-2 is already too much.

BMP-1 with 76mm and Malyutka will be good enough.

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

-1 sorry i want the BMP-1

[Nope 10,634]

Whoa man, that's a bit much. Now, what seriously bothers me is the date. This is a modern IFV,which means many people will complain about the lack of modern MBTs, and no one can have that here. Plus it has modern stabilizers that even permit ATGM guidance up to a speed of 20 km/h. Also, while the tank does not have any formal composite, it uses BT-70Sh HHS in the front as well as ABT-102 aluminum. On top of that, it uses fuel tanks as armor exactly like the Merkava mk I, only the fuel tank is designed to be used as armor without a doubt. Now that just complicates armor modeling by a very serious degree. It becomes even worse if the wave breaker were to be extended as well. I'd honestly just stay away from this.

[Retry 7,363]

1 hour ago, dotEXCEL said:

-1 sorry i want the BMP-1

You wanted late '80s IFVs

You get late '80s IFVs

[WulfPack 1,693]

4 minutes ago, Nope said:

Whoa man, that's a bit much. Now, what seriously bothers me is the date. This is a modern IFV,which means many people will complain about the lack of modern MBTs, and no one can have that here. Plus it has modern stabilizers that even permit ATGM guidance up to a speed of 20 km/h. Also, while the tank does not have any formal composite, it uses BT-70Sh HHS in the front as well as ABT-102 aluminum. On top of that, it uses fuel tanks as armor exactly like the Merkava mk I, only the fuel tank is designed to be used as armor without a doubt. Now that just complicates armor modeling by a very serious degree. It becomes even worse if the wave breaker were to be extended as well. I'd honestly just stay away from this.

Yeah, it is a bit much for now. Maybe down the road. 

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

11 hours ago, Retry said:

12 hours ago, dotEXCEL said:

-1 sorry i want the BMP-1

You wanted late '80s IFVs

You get late '80s IFVs

 

In defence of dotExcel marder has only 20mm autocannon.

But true is we should not have modern IFV in game. Having both autocannon for soft targets and ATGM for MBTs is a little too much to ask for.

[Solid_Snake01 974]

Maybe in the future but BMP-1 will do for now.

[WulfPack 1,693]

4 hours ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

 

In defence of dotExcel marder has only 20mm autocannon.

And a MILAN ATGM.

[WulfPack 1,693]

What Nope meant by the fuel tank being additional armor. 

 

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

6 hours ago, WulfPack said:

And a MILAN ATGM.

That's why i'am against modern IFVs in game.

Just sayin 20mm autocannon =/= 100mm cannon

[WulfPack 1,693]

1 minute ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

Just sayin 20mm autocannon =/= 100mm cannon

Rh 202 = 2A72

[Retry 7,363]

1 hour ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

That's why i'am against modern IFVs in game.

Just sayin 20mm autocannon =/= 100mm cannon

Well the MILAN is worse than the HOT

And the 100mm cannon is a low-velocity gun launcher, so its only useful anti-tank portion of that particular gun is the ATGM.

The autocannon is a bit superior to the Marder 1's Rh.202 but not as powerful as something like the Type 89's 35mm cannon or the Bushmaster (IIRC)

[Lord_Waka 1,932]

At this point just suggest the T-15 Armata. No seriously, this is from the late 80s, this is litterally 20 years ahead everything except the Type 87 SPAA. 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Lord_Waka

[Retry 7,363]

1 hour ago, Lord_Waka said:

At this point just juggest the T-15 Armata. No seriously, this is from the late 80s, this is litterally 20 years ahead everything except the Type 87 SPAA. 

Oh, I agree.  At this point though, it's basically too late.

 

Also, the difference in tone of the general playerbase between this '80s IFV and the Marder 1A3 IFV (also from the '80s ofc) is simply astounding.

[RefrigerRaider 563]

I like, upgraded version of the BMP-1 !!!

[Admiral_Aruon 2,264]

nice!. it'll make for a good 7.7 or 8.0 IFV. +1

Edited October 31, 2017 by Admiral_Aruon

[Nope 10,634]

12 minutes ago, Admiral_Aruon said:

nice!. it'll make for a good 7.7 or 8.0 IFV. +1

 

its a good thing fuel tanks integrate very well with the armor system in-game

 

oh wait

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 3:47 PM, WulfPack said:

Rh 202 = 2A72

 

Rh.202 has about HALF the penetration of the 2A42 / 2A72, the only thing the Rh.202 has going for it is RoF, of which the 2A42 isn't too far behind (in the rapid fire mode). 

 

1 hour ago, Admiral_Aruon said:

nice!. it'll make for a good 7.7 or 8.0 IFV. +1

 

 

yes, lets put a turreted, 600mm pen modern ATGM, fuel tank armored, AFV at 8.0, that's what this game needs.... 

[Nope 10,634]

8 minutes ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

Rh.202 has about HALF the penetration of the 2A42 / 2A72, the only thing the Rh.202 has going for it is RoF, of which the 2A42 isn't too far behind (in the rapid fire mode).

 

Not exactly half, but more like 20% when comparing APDS. APDS and APFSDS on the other hand results in 36%.

[WulfPack 1,693]

2 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

Not exactly half, but more like 20% when comparing APDS. APDS and APFSDS on the other hand results in 36%.

What is the penetration of the Rh202?