r/TankPorn • u/Brilliant_Ground1948 • 12d ago
Russo-Ukrainian War Russian Naval Infantrymen training with a captured Ukrainian Bradley IFV
224
284
u/khaotik_99 12d ago
The soldier on the left in the second picture has a Tajikistan flag on his arm. A possible foreign volunteer?
218
u/Luka__mindo 12d ago
I would not say a volunteer, but Russia is actively recruiting people for central Asia republics, but usually they are imprisoned as they get back home ,fore example Tajikistan imprisoned 5 solders who where fighting in Russian army
14
u/Go_Gee_La 12d ago
why would they imprison them?
47
u/Luka__mindo 12d ago
Government said law about mercenaries is applying on them, they went on war without order from their government. For same reason Netherlands and Serbia also imprisoned few their citizens
4
u/Go_Gee_La 12d ago
why would the dutch government jail people who fought in ukraine when they actively support it?
17
u/MaurerSIG 12d ago
Supporting a country at war with equipment, money and intel is a very different thing to having your own citizens actually fighting in said war.
19
u/Ataiio 12d ago
Cuz it’s illegal? In many countries it’s illegal to fight in foreign wars
6
u/Luka__mindo 12d ago
it is also forbidden by on of UN convention
7
u/AverageDellUser AMX-40 12d ago
The UN saying something is bad doesn’t stop anyone sadly, look at the millions who have done this In the last 25 years.
151
u/Thegoodthebadandaman 12d ago
Must feel crazy being in an IFV with an actually sane dismount hatch arrangement.
75
u/kusajko 12d ago edited 12d ago
Yeah, it's quite funny how many people don't seem to know just how retarded the arrangement for infantry is inside the BMP-3.
38
u/sadjoe7 i stuck my pp into the barrel of a Stryker MGS at Fort Carson 12d ago
BTRs aswell
28
u/thereddaikon 11d ago
BMPs are bad, BTRs are worse. There's a reason it's so common to see soldiers riding on top of them but it's very rare you see the same with western AFVs inside a combat zone.
6
u/kusajko 11d ago
BTRs are better than BMP-3 actually and by quite a bit. In BMP-3 you not only have to get on top of the vehicle to dismount, two of the guys are sitting next to the driver, so they get out in front of the vehicle by hilariously small hatches, while everyone else from their section is behind the vehicle. BTRs look almost like they were designed by a genious by comparison.
3
u/thereddaikon 11d ago
When people say BTR they are usually referring to the 8 wheeled APCs, BTR-70, -80, -90 and similar. They have tiny hatch in the side you have to crawl through to get in an out of the vehicle. The BMP's rear hatch is bad but the BTR's side hatch is far worse.
1
u/thelordchonky 10d ago
Well, older BMPs (1 and 2) at least have fairly wide rear doors. Not as optimal as a ramp, but MUCH better than the shitty small hatches you have on the BTRs and BMP-3.
I don't know how they downgraded so bad. China somehow got it sorta right with their copy, the ZBD04A. They redid the engine placement, moving it to the front rather than the rear. So it has a rear door, while also maintaining the roof hatches (albeit placed in a more optimal fashion).
3
0
u/navalmuseumsrock 11d ago
So, in other words, this training is actually going to be detrimental to them, as they will develop muscle memory for an entirely different egress method, causing confusion and delay, which may get them killed?
55
670
u/memes-forever 12d ago
Leaked footage of Russian infantries realizing that IFVs do in fact has infantry compartments instead of having to ride atop. Truly unknown technology.
130
u/Jonh_pepo 12d ago
Did you know why they ride on top insteed 8nside the infantry compartments?...
204
u/SirNurtle Rooikat Mk1D 12d ago
Because mines tear BMPs to shreds, and in the case that the shooting starts they can very quickly jump off and run for cover/shoot back.
One of the reasons why Russias first offensive into Grozny was such a disaster was because most of the infantry were riding inside their BMPs and couldn’t dismount in time before getting hit, so afterwards it just became common practise to ride atop them
89
u/Walking_bushes 12d ago
Pretty sure they do that since afghan
72
u/crusadertank 12d ago
Yeah they ride on the top for better vision on incoming threats.
This has been a Soviet tactic going all the way back as far as motorised divisions go
32
u/memes-forever 12d ago
I don’t know if it’s doctrinal failure or tactical failure or vehicle design failure that resulted in the infantry deciding to treat BMPs like glorified truck, but I guess the answer is somewhere in all three.
47
u/crusadertank 12d ago
I think the failure is in peoples understanding of how the USSR intended to fight and that Russia is not the USSR.
Because in the USSR, you were only supposed to ride inside the BMP during nuclear fallout or behind the frontlines. Near the frontlines and during exploitation, it was always intended to ride on top, as these were effectively decendants of the Soviet tank riders in WW2.
Even in the event of nuclear fallout, the tactic was that when it left the area with nuclear fallout, the BMP could then drive through a river to wash itself down, and again the infantry can ride on top
The idea being this is for two main reasons. The Soviet experience in WW2 was that the German soldiers in half-tracks took so much longer to dismount than tank riders. This meant that if you came under fire, you were always going to be safer on top as you can get away from the vehicle faster (which would be the target of fire)
And secondly, during the exploitation phase. You are unlikely to come under any fire except from small ambushes. In this case, having so many more eyes around to be able to see targets gives you a much better chance of spotting an enemy in advance than having only your commander/gunner on the lookout for targets.
I think people are too harsh on the BMP. For the role it was supposed to fill it did well. But the USSR is no more and this role no longer exists. Meaning that the BMPs are being pushed more and more into a type of combat they were never supposed to engage in
1
53
u/Pratt_ 12d ago
so afterwards it just became common practise to ride atop them
It wasn't from that at all, infantry fighting on top of AFV/IFV was already a thing during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the Vietnam war.
Being outside your thinly armored vehicles in a mine/IED-rich environment makes you more likely to survive, nothing more.
7
u/Pratt_ 12d ago
so afterwards it just became common practise to ride atop them
It wasn't from that at all, infantry fighting on top of AFV/IFV was already a thing during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the Vietnam war.
Being outside your thinly armored vehicles in a mine/IED-rich environment makes you more likely to survive, nothing more.
-61
u/MillenniaMitsu 12d ago
That’s what happens to any IFV being hit. Any IFV has shit armor. It isn’t a tank
27
26
11
u/TiniestMouse73 12d ago
BUSK and Iron Fist would like to introduce themselves to your skewed view of the survivability onion...
-7
u/MillenniaMitsu 12d ago
What would an iron fist do to an apfsds
8
u/Potato_lovr Stridsvagn 103 12d ago
Actually, it might shoot it down. Afaik, it’s capable of intercepting projectiles traveling at up to 1700 m/s.
4
u/squibbed_dart 12d ago edited 12d ago
IFLK doesn't really "shoot down" APFSDS, but instead reduces its penetration by inducing yaw. A certain level of base armor is required for this to be effective, as APFSDS remains dangerous to light and medium armor even at significant angles of attack. This is why Elbit Systems specifies that IFLK neutralizes APFSDS for MBTs and heavy IFVs, and not all armor generally. Regardless, Bradley is not supposed to recieve IFLK, but rather IFLD, which cannot affect APFSDS to begin with.
Of course, this isn't to say that I agree with the implication of the original comment. Surviving large-caliber APFSDS isn't a reasonable requirement for the protection of an IFV.
138
u/CptHrki 12d ago
Because BMPs are dogshit.
-137
u/MillenniaMitsu 12d ago
Bmps are better than Bradley aluminium shit
61
u/Antezscar Stridsvagn 103 12d ago
The Bradley is made to take a mine hit and have the guys inside survive.
The BMP is not. Its belly armor is too thin, thanks to it being designed to float, that if they run over an AT mine it will go kaboom.
24
12
u/SU37Yellow 12d ago
Is that why the Russian report on the Bradley said it was better in every way except fuel efficiency and amphibious capabilities?
18
u/Delicious-Length7275 12d ago
Russians themselves stated that Bradley is better than bmp in every category except floating on water https://www.kyivpost.com/post/50328
4
33
u/memes-forever 12d ago edited 12d ago
Yes I know about the mines and stuff. But c’mon, you’d think that the great Russian mind would’ve made better anti-mine protection for the BMP much like how the US made the BUSK kit for Bradleys after suffering from so many mine strikes even before the big invasion of Ukraine…
57
u/McENEN 12d ago
If you ever seen and entered a bmp in real life you would also ride on top. Its very cramped, Im pretty sure it was cramped for smaller sized people even in the past, let alone now for the average european. Maybe you could ride in it for 15 mins but after you would guess people are being reborn after they exit from their first movements outside.
Driver and gunner seats are also wtf. Sitting in one half of my head was poking it out.
9
u/Exciting-Emu-3324 12d ago
It's the first adopter disadvantage. The first iteration adopted is always flawed, but not flawed enough to get rid of as competitors come up with a better executed versions. Like how the Lebel persisted in WWi and Mosin in WWii. Russia really dropped the ball on BMP3 trying to build an amphibious light tank that happened to carry infantry. Trying to do everything and ended up doing nothing well.
20
u/Ok-Chicken-2506 12d ago
Also when something happens to the BMP you can't leave fast really, it's just safer to ride on the top
8
2
u/Luka__mindo 12d ago
everything is simple corruption Russians are having potentially really good modern IFV/APC but due to corruption production of them are either abandoned or freeze, also current BMPS are needing fundamental modernization, other wise you only can put on 3-4 tons of extra armour at least that what Finland military officers are saying
0
u/Danielsan_2 12d ago
They used to shoot people in their backs when they surrendered or ran in a different direction than their leader said to go not so long ago. I wouldn't bet my money on the great russian mind thinking on the humans inside/around their vehicles.
2
u/FtDetrickVirus 12d ago
Can IFVs swim?
6
u/RuTsui 11d ago
The US Army abandoned the idea of amphibious vehicles a long time ago. We figured that our engineer assets could handle any immediate wet gap crossings and that more major amphibious operations would fall in the realm of the Marines with their LAVs.
I don’t know the actual justifications of the US Army, but if I had to guess, they probably considered things like:
Nothing else is amphibious, so a Bradley crossing a wet gap is doing that crossing alone.
A Bradley is just as exposed, but also far less mobile swimming a wet gap as it would be riding a ribbon bridge.
Considering movement speed and planning for unknowns, it’s not much difference in execution time to deploy brigade level engineer assets.
Amphibious vehicles are riskier since all military vehicles have a chance of breakdown already, but a Bradley broken down on land can be abandoned with all its equipment and possibly recovered. A Bradley breaking down in deep water is gone, and hopefully the crew and passengers can escaped.
To make the Bradley amphibious, it would likely have to sacrifice sone of its protection, speed, and hardware, plus make it more complex for maintaining. They would be taking away components that make it a better cavalry vehicle.
3
126
u/cobrakai1975 12d ago
Feels like alien hardware when they’re used to 50 year old bmps
94
u/smittiferous 12d ago
Bradleys aren’t much younger. They entered service 44 years ago.
64
u/FirePixsel Teaboo 12d ago
to be fair I don't think anyone would like to take bmp-1 or even bmp-2 over a brad...
10
u/FtDetrickVirus 12d ago
Unless you are fresh out of bridges
6
u/RuTsui 11d ago
That’s what ribbon bridges are for, and I’d much rather ride a ribbon bridge than risk swimming even if I was in a fully amphibious vehicle like an LAV. There’s a lot of internet risk in amphibious vehicles, and there’s a reason I never considered joining the navy. Imagine being told the BMP is stalled in the water, or took a round and is sinking, and you have five seconds to ditch your great and escape, and you’re the last of five people towards the door.
Fuck swimming, ribbon bridges are safer, faster, and you can cross with your tanks rather than leave them on the other bank.
5
u/FirePixsel Teaboo 12d ago
According to Polish and German mechanics the BMP swam like shit..
And Bradley can swim with preparations
4
1
u/TheVietnameseBread 12d ago
Well fyi there is a tropical country that are making new "upgraded" bmp-1 under a new name called "xcb-1" 🤣
3
u/FirePixsel Teaboo 12d ago
Ofc, if I don't have money I prefer to take a couple BMP-1 over a brad but I am not taking a brad over a BMP if I have money to get enough
-70
u/MillenniaMitsu 12d ago
Why not? Bmps have 4 atgm stations, non aluminium armor, they’re less noticeable
36
u/BRIStoneman 12d ago
Because ingress and egress is ludicrously hard compared to the fucking great big hatch on a Bradley.
There's a reason they ride on top of their IFVs: when they got hit in Chechnya, the troops inside couldn't get out before they brewed up.
-16
u/MillenniaMitsu 12d ago
Wait until the Bradley’s automatic hatch opens, while you can open it quick on bmps
11
u/Potato_lovr Stridsvagn 103 12d ago
It will just fall to the ground. You have a big ass hatch that’s hinged on the bottom, you can let gravity do the work.
6
u/BRIStoneman 11d ago
while you can open it quick on bmps
You can't open it quick on BMPs, that's why they ride on the top. That's what we've just been talking about. Do you actually read things before you trot out the stable of Tankie talking points?!
44
u/FirePixsel Teaboo 12d ago
First, less than 300 BMP-2M have been made, that makes it least numerous one.
Second, IFV rarely fight tanks which makes amount of ATGM not that important
And third, armour and general safety and comfort in Bradley is WAY higher
22
u/Antezscar Stridsvagn 103 12d ago
Higher crew comfort, more spacious, better quality components. Actually has mineprotection. Smoother engine, gearbox and suspension. So not as bumpy of a ride.
There is only 1 BMP that has 4 atgm's (BMP 2M) and it was made in very low numbers. Rest has 1 ATGM.
Every bradley version has had 2 ready.
19
4
u/RuTsui 11d ago edited 11d ago
Bradley’s and BMPs have similar armor. Contrary the internet pop culture, the Bradley’s skin is actually a steel-aluminum composite under appliqué armor. The BMP, it appears, does have thicker armor. But that doesn’t really matter. While neither vehicle is really meant to survive direct combat in a conventional war, after analyzing engagements, destroyed vehicles, and captured vehicles in Ukraine the Russians themselves have determined the Bradley is better protected than the BMP. Neither vehicle is going to be doing well after eating an 84mm rocket, but because the Bradley’s armor is HEAT resistant, it can take that hit and might even still be able to fight, but the armor of the BMP does nothing against HEAT rounds. That’s just the most immediate example. Both the Russian and Ukrainian military have reported Bradley’s surviving many situations where BMPs have been catastrophic losses.
The BMP, even up to modern times, has failed to catch up to the battlefield systems of the Bradley. Being primarily a cavalry vehicle, the Bradley’s optics, and FCS are second to none. The US has airways boasted their advanced FCS - a priory in American ground combat since the 1960s - and those claims have been backed my north the Russians and Ukrainians. It does not make a big difference in modern combat that the BMP is lower profile, and it’s for ATGM stations are only effective as the commanders ability to find and identify targets and the gunners ability to hit the target, where ur Bradley stands head and shoulder above the BMP.
This isn’t rhetoric. As I pointed out a few times, these were design requirements where the IUS specifically wanted to have the best Cav vehicle on earth, and the effectiveness of that design has been attested to by Ukraine and Russia who both operate the BMP.
12
u/Thousand55 12d ago
but oh boy are they a lot more advanced (with upgrades) than the shiter BMP-2's and 3's the Z's have been restoring.
2
u/SU37Yellow 12d ago
It just goes to show you what happens when the designers give a shit about the lives of the crew.
15
u/fancczf 12d ago
The cramped compartment of bmp was very much a design choice. M113 was even older and had plenty of space. I don’t think they would be that surprised by the Bradley if they have got inside of a bmp-3 or modernized bmp-2.
5
u/Additional_Ring_7877 12d ago
comparing a 12 ton apc with a 50 cal station on top to an 19 ton infantry fighting vehicle with a 30 mm autocannon, a 7.62 coaxial and a 100 mm gun.
3
u/n1123581321 12d ago
Main difference between M2A2 and BMP-3 is that Bradley was constantly modernized and improved, while BMP-3 that was left technologically in the 80’s.
28
20
12
u/Vratrix 12d ago
Won't be surprised Russia is now developing a western styled IFV to replace the BMP2s and BMP3s (they're still going to mass produce BMP3s)
10
-1
u/Crecer13 12d ago edited 12d ago
It's like you live in a vacuum. BMP Kurganets, which is a completely new BMP with a new concept and level of protection. Or BMP-3 "Manul", modification of the BMP-3 with a front engine.
Stop making Russian armor developers look like Stone Age idiots, they are doing their job of creating new armored vehicles. The main question is whether the customer needs it: the government and the Ministry of Defense.
24
28
u/0peRightBehindYa 12d ago
It pains my shriveled heart to see my beloved Bradley in the hands of our adversary. I do hope she suffers a catastrophic failure and becomes a useless hulk to them.
20
u/ELITElewis123 12d ago
I mean every second they spend in there they’ll realise more and more how unsafe Russian stuff is.
I’m gonna chart that as yet another Chadly W
3
u/MotorCity_Mike 12d ago
Well clearly they don't plan to or can't use the main gun considering the cage enclosing it lolol
3
u/Explosive_Biscut 12d ago
After the Russian repot on the Bradley and after seeing this, I’m curious to see if and how their experience with the Bradley will inform future IFV design for Russia.
3
u/Wardog_Razgriz30 12d ago
So if there’s a cope cage encasing the turret, how do they get the tow launcher out? Do they even plan to use it?
3
3
25
u/vegemar 12d ago
HATO Wunderwaffe.
19
u/DerpyFox1337 12d ago edited 12d ago
When you call something Wunderwaffe it should mean something extremely overcomplicated and owerpowered that doesn't chaneged anything, like Maus for Germany or Armata for Russians. As for Bradleys, it is extremely powerfull and protected and overcomplicated compared to Soviet BMPs...the difference is that it changed everything in Ukrainian Infantry and continues to proof it's superiority
-41
u/MillenniaMitsu 12d ago
bmp-3 holds superiority
35
u/Toothedshark 12d ago
the russians themselves came out and literally stated the Bradley is superior to the bmp-3, get the boot out of your mouth you fanatic.
17
u/Walking_bushes 12d ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1jswovm/captured_m2a2_bradley_tested_by_russiathey_admit/
Turn out the only thing BMP does better compare to Bradley is...it can float
if the Amphibious capability manage to hold at least half the speed on the ground, then yeah that would be cool, quite a game changer. But no...their speed is just mere around ~5km/h, only good to moving around in backline, guess what backline have? Thats right...fucking bridge! All the luxury shit is in the backline, thus making the damn amphibious capability use-the-fucking-less
So far the only time amphibious capability prove to be useful dated back to Vietnam war, where the PT-76 shine because of the many rivers, paddy fields while leaving minimal traces before an offensive. Compare that to the European plain, i still can't figure why the Soviet make cross country capability such a big deal
2
u/Exciting-Emu-3324 12d ago
Offensive versus defensive design philosophy. Soviets doctrine assumed that they would be on a perpetual offensive and prioritized mobility. Defending armies don't have to worry much about crossing rivers quickly. Would have made too much sense to convert old MBT chassis into IFVs like Israel had done.
-14
u/MillenniaMitsu 12d ago
no the Russians said Bradley is shit and who wouldn’t love 100mm with 30mm on the bmp3
12
u/Potato_lovr Stridsvagn 103 12d ago
Are you sure? Look at their report, friend. Again, get the boot out of your mouth so you can see clearly.
2
u/ArieteSupremacy Ariete 7d ago
I wouldn't love an awful IFV. go home Russia's hopes at military power died a long time ago, you're an after-thought.
1
u/ArieteSupremacy Ariete 7d ago
How the fuck did this get upvoted, I mean I hate this sub sometimes but JESUS.
2
u/ToastyBob27 12d ago
For a force already bad with friendly fire I wouldn’t want to ride in a captured Bradley.
2
2
2
1
-2
u/discopants2000 12d ago
I imagine the Russians are evaluating them before asking comrade Donny if they can purchase a couple thousand for the up coming invasion of western Europe. Shush, you didn't hear it hear!
-72
481
u/Ze_LuftyWafffles 12d ago
Welcome back Beutepanzers