BMP: Amphibious or a Watery Grave?
How amphibious are the BMP-1 and BMP-2 really? What are the problems in real life and what are its capabilities on paper. Is it really buoyant or more like a watery grave? For this we look at statements by a German combat engineer currently serving in the Ukraine War ( / buttjerfreimann ) and we also look at original manuals of the BMP.
Disclosure in 2018, 2019 & 2020 I was invited by the Panzermuseum Munster.
/ daspanzermuseum
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» KZhead Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
»» SOURCES ««
Handbuch für mot.Schützen II Schützenpanzer. 1. Auflage, Militärverlag der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik: Berlin, German Democratic Republic.
Zaloga, Steven J.: BMP Infantry Fighting Vehicle 1967-1994. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 1997.
Blume, Peter: SPz Marder. Der Schützenpanzer der Bundeswehr - Geschichte, Einsatz, Technik. Tankograd Publishing: Erlangen, Germany, 2007.
Buttjer Freimann: / buttjerfreimann
thesovietarmourblog.blogspot....
thesovietarmourblog.blogspot....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpo...
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpu...
www.danubecommission.org/dc/d...
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe#Fl...
www.nps.gov/miss/riverfacts.htm
#BMP #amphibious #ifv
00:00 Intro
00:37 The Manual
02:25 Technical Data
04:18 Components to allow amphibious Employment
06:03 Reality Check
07:08 Condition of the Water, Recon & Preparation
08:31 Unlocking the BMP Perk Tree?
09:29 Conclusion
The class consciousness is a reference to taking pride in your place of work and looking after your tools. AKA - maintain your vehicle. While it's contextual, it's shorthand that a Warsaw Pact NCO would instantly get.
OK, but I choose to believe it was like the 40K cult of the machine spirit where if you didn't buy into the official belief system hard enough the equipment would sulk and refuse to work. Because that's more fun ;)
While you're probably correct, it's funnier to think about East German soldiers reading works by Marx, Engels, and Lenin to reach the plane of class consciousness where they can master Dialectical Materialism at such a level that they can reshape material reality and unlock all the capabilities of their vehicle.
@@wrathofachilles Red ones go faster!
Yes, the class-consciousness part made practical sense to me, too: it's getting one's head out of the 'medieval warrior nobility [that doesn't get their hands greasy with anything but the enemy's entrails]' mode. @IrishCarney Purple ones can't be seen, which explains why the monarchism of the black-pilled and reichsburgers goes unrecognized.
@@IrishCarney if they believe it floats, it will.
I was a grunt in US Army back when we still used the M113. I was one of the very few in our outfit authorized to swim our tracks. Virtually everything you said here would have applicable to M113. Good video and thanks for the work preparing this!
I was wondering if I was the only one that saw this. At a prepared crossing, yes, M113 or BMP CAN amphib, possibly. Outside of the marine services, I knew of no AFV that could splash-in; splash-out.
When was that? A couple of years ago? Though seriously, the Army finally started to replace the M113 with their new Bradley-based vehicle.
@@FLJBeliever1776 1984.
I read the manual on the M113 when I was in the Army, although I was in artillery. The amphibious part sounded way too difficult to even attempt!😉
@@xray86delta It is the difference between showing what an single IFV can do at a dry ford; as opposed to a Battalion-plus sized combined arms unit under fire.
If I recall correctly, Soviet river crossing operations were very complex procedures that would need regimental and divisional assets. Identifying potential crossing sites on maps, recon of the site, infiltrating the far side, and preparing the earmarked battalions to conduct the crossing was all required to be done beforehand. Since regular day-to-day Soviet training in motor rifle units typically was conducted at the squad to battalion level, with emphasis on platoon and company training for basic combat, I imagine an amphibious assault would be very hard to pull off in the real world.
They also placed a lot of emphasis on river crossings and had them as part of the routine movement, which is a bit schizophrenic if you only train them once a year, maybe.
@@ArchOfficial Regiment level training and higher was typically done in major exercises. The problems with these were that they were a bit sporadic and were often choreographed. They looked impressive but often didn't really strive to simulate real battlefield conditions against a cunning opponent. The Soviet side typically 'won' these mock operations handily. Lower-level training was more based on learned experience from WW2 and consisted of practicing drills, ie, deliberate assault, meeting engagement, deliberate defense, fighting withdrawal, response to contact, movement to contact, etc. Again, this drilling (from my understanding) didn't involve river crossings.
They never did that lol. Not a single time.
@@fiatlux4058 While 'winning' exercises may seem good on paper, it has drawbacks in real life. US formations that rotated into the National Training Center often got thrashed by their mock Soviet opponents. The result? US forces had good respect for the theoretical capabilities of Soviet forces and learned how to counter them even in poor circumstances. Today in Ukraine, one of the biggest advantages that the Ukrainians have over the Russians is that they spent the last 8 years planning to fight the theoretical Russian army, not the real Russian army. While the Russian army is obviously far smaller and poorer than the Cold War Soviet army, their biggest failures in Ukraine relate to their poor strategic decision-making. Expecting to walk over your enemy is a recipe for disappointment. Expecting your enemy to bring their A-game is a recipe for being pleasantly surprised.
Soviet river crossing operations, and, for that matter, everything Soviets and Russians do, are indeed complex and chaotic. For the first spring, summer, and fall. But if you're not in Moscow by Christmas, their operations soon improve aplenty.
So, it's no better a swimmer than the M-113 I crewed as a young infantryman in the eighties. In five years as a vehicle crewman I can only recall three times we trained for amphibious operations and all were "familiarization" rather than tactical operations that left me with the understanding that we should try ANYTHING else before trying to make that brick swim...
Never tried swimming the M-113 while I was in the Canadian military, but did do amphibious training with the Cougar & Grizzly (based on the 6x6 Mowag Pirahna). Even with propellers and a lovely big trim vane it still didn't inspire the greatest of confidence.
In the Greek army, that still uses m 113 we often call it " papaki" ( duckling) implying that they can actually swim But in reality what we have been told is that the swimming part was a kind of evolutionary leftover, they can't swim especially the ones with the diesel engines and those used by the marines had additional floating devices and yet again they would be lunched from a troop transport only if there was no other alternative
The nicknames for the M113 are generally hilarious! XD Here in Germany it was called "The Elephant Shoe" IIRC. There were several more, but I can't remeber. :(
During my conscript days in the Singapore Army 10 odd years ago we'd do river crossings in our M113s during every battalion exercise, probably did three in six months as we got ready for our evaluation. For most of them I was sitting in my seat behind the driver so I couldn't see anything, but on one exercise the Plt Sgt let me stick my head out the cargo hatch. Pretty creepy, the water was at neck level and it was in the dead of night so inky blackness all around. Not something to be used in the open seas that's for sure.
It makes sense that Singapore would place a high priority on amphibious capabilities. I didn't like doing it in the daylight, I can only imagine how nerve wracking it must have been in the dark. That takes guts and a lot of training...
I once read a Soviet infantry's guide on how to ride comfortably on a BMP, which talks about all the position you can sit on. The article specifically mentions that the vehicle commander would never allow you to open certain hatches, the rubber sealings on them had degraded so badly that they would start leaking rainwater if ever opened. Anyone with a bit of diving experience would tell you that any component related to water tightness needs to be rigorously inspected and maintained. Given the storage and maintenance condition of most BMPs, it's already a miracle that they can still run in the first place.
my parents boat has a cabin hatch on the front. if that hatch is opened it has a hard time sealing when shut and locked. after a couple years, that seal does not work well at all evwn when being locked tight for months at a time. I couldn't imagine trusting a worn seal that is over 10 years old... but we all know those seals are probably at least 25-30 years old
Asa este..toate garniturile erau coapte de soare..puține vehicule stăteau sub acoperiș...și mai puține în încăperi cu temperatura constantă 😢😢..Nimeni NU se risca sa treacă o apa mai adâncă de 1 m cu M.L.I. /B.M.P...în schimb, cu T.A B./ B.T.R...acelea ,,pluteau,, destul de Bine...dar vreo câteva tot s-au dus la fundul apei..unul chiar în Dunăre..( parcă pe la Galați)😢 noroc ca NU au fost răniți 😮..Personal, doar 1 dată am trecut cu T.A.B -77 prin apă ( avea cam 3-4 metri)..trebuie pregătit cu Maxima Atenție..pe dedesubt, etc..barca de asalt aproape 😂😂
Video title: "BMP: Amphibious or a Watery Grave?" BMP's response: "Why not both?"
I remember a comment from a czech ex BMP commander that said that the main issue is not keeping afloat but leaving the river. The amphibious drills were carried out in concrete pools with still water, but in realistic conditions, the vehicle could not easily leave the river and would get stuck, so it was never actually attempted besides said drills.
The Bundeswehr made a series of trials in the 1980´s with the Luchs, Fuchs, M113 and Leopard 1 under real conditions trying to cross a canal in northern germany. 2 different setups were trialed, with reinforced banks and without. In both cases the vehicles could enter the river, even though the M113 struggled, but leaving the river on their own power was out of the question. None made it up the opposing river bank without ARV support (basicly getting pulled up while pushing the engine to its limits), the Leopard 1, comparable to the T-62, T-64, T-72 and T-80 in weight and ground pressure, ground itself into a bog on the riverbed, was stuck and needed ARV recovery to get out of the situation. You just dont cross a river without a ferry or bridge in a tank or APC.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 That was good info. Thanks.
If one was at all serious about amphibious operations one would want: 1 Over body tracks that could ensure maximum chance of gripping a steep river or lake bank or obstacles. 2 propellers or thrusters to increase the speed from say 4.0kmh(2.4mph) to something like 16kmh(10mph) which would ram the tank on to the shore. 3 a system of rocket or pyrotechnical grappling hooks to fire to the other bank and winch the vehicle up and 4 finally ramps for the crew to evacuate the vehicle forward with weapons.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 yeah, but i remember seeing concrete ramps on some german rivers made for that exact purpose, for amphibius crossings if the bridges are down, so they at least planned according to their actual capabilities..
@@dannyboy-vtc5741 the pre prepared military fords on the Weser and other similar rivers have long been deconstructed since 1991. And those were generally intended for M3 Amphibie pontoon ferrys/bridges
25 years ago, I served in a tank unit in the Greek army. We had a number of bmp 1 that Greece had bought from Germany. They used to belong to the east German army. We were specifically told that they had no amphibious capabilities. They were darn fast and low profile, but they were already quite old, even then. The space in the back was a bit claustrophobic, but they had those interesting hatches that we could (theoretically) shoot our rifles from. I doubt that this could really be effective, when I tried if seemed impossible... the bow was mostly tilted for the elevation of the ground, not to enter a body of water.
The nice part about the hull shape is that it makes AT mines explode in a more dangerous location, blowing up the whole crew and ammo instead of just the front.
I think the holes were intended for densely forested Germany where you could could get ambushed, so the infantrymen inside firing to the sides would basically provide suppressive fire
You guys seems to forget that bmp-1 was the first IFV in the world, a whole new type of armoured vehicle started out of this thing. Give it a break.
@@alexandrvasilev2865 Which is why the Russians went and made a nearly identical vehicle with the bmp-2 😂😂😂
@@ArchOfficial ? Mind to explain , only problem with BMP and mine I knew are the weak point that when they hit mine driver and commander position hence later model they weld extra armour bellow the commander and driver seat.
I love the public servent joke. It´s very difficult to train all your men to the point where they might master their equipment. It´s hard in a professional army, but much harder in a conscript army. In my point of view the capability to cross rivers is more or less a specialization for a hand full of units. But if you plan for WW3 it might make sense to build all vehicles to the standard of this specialized units, so you have an easier logistics.
Given stellar Russian maintenance practices, we can be confident that all the components necessary for amphibious operations will always be in tip-top shape, especially those vehicles recovered from long-term storage. /s
@@cv990a4 The same goes for all modernized overhauled variants of BMP-1 and BVP-1 not only in Russia.
6:54 I love that the "Dated equipment" icon is an old man yelling at a cloud. 😂 Love your videos, keep up the good work! 👍
Glad you enjoy it!
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I laughed out loud at that meme reference. Good job! (Old man here....)
In 1965 I read a 1957 book by Helen and Frank Schreider, "20,000 Miles South--A Pan-American Adventure in a Seagoing Jeep from the Arctic Circle to Tierra Del Fuego." I had seen a couple of Amphibcars when my family was in Germany. While in Fort Riley as a soldier in 1985 I attended the First Infantry Divisions tracked vehicle driver's school, a two-week course on the M113 family. All of these amphibious vehicles had reputations for being so-so land vehicles and very poor boats. All three required preparation before going amphibious and then after exiting the water required maintenance--at least going over them with a hose and a grease gun. The Schreiders vividly described how they managed to sail water gaps in the Pan-American Highway by first going over their rebuilt amphibious jeep that they named Tortuga. Those descriptions stuck with me for two decades--until I managed to experience those preparations first-hand. I had been told and told and told that the BMP was quite the swimmer. Sounds like it was a provisional swimmer, just like the three vehicles I mentioned above.
As always seeing the Tankograd blog getting quoted and seeing more exposure is most pleasing. Such an underrated source.
This is a Question I asked myself and mentioned in my video comparing the Marder and BMPs. Its fascinating to look at the amphibious capability of Soviet equipment, because together with the low profil requirement it shaped how those vehicles looked and was the reason for a lot of their downsides. The soviets really valued amphibious capability. But on the other side of the fence, the western powers wanted it and then discovered that a real water crossing capability particularly for IFVs required to many design compromises. So they focused on other water crossing solutions. Of course beeing more defensively minded in the cold war, the probably would not have needed to cross many water obstacles without bridges. Thanks for the video.
NATO conducted a statistical analysis of the European terrain and found that as a rule of thumb, you can never move more than 20 km (12 miles) in a straight line in Europe, without having to cross at least one river. So being able to cross rivers is important, even in a defensive strategy. Bridges would of course be prime targets, especially for a defender.
@@TrangleC The Bundeswehr conducted trials in the 1980´s at the Canals branching off from the Elbe ahead of Hamburg. Those trials were quite sobering, as no vehicle was able to cross the canals without recovery vehicle assistance (we are talking here about proper amphibious vehicles like Tpz Fuchs, SpPz Luchs, M113 APC and Leopard 1 in deep wading configuration.) If you want to cross a river, take a bridge or build a bridge, but dont try to swim your tank across, wont end well.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 But the Korean seems to be very happy about driving their vehicle under water?
Exactly the Warsaw Pact was designed for long range penetration to race to the Rhine and beyond. They were obsessed with river crossings thus their heavy equipment could still use bridges, plus they had huge numbers of airborne and helicopter borne troops and vehicles to seize bridges, plus masses of bridge laying vehicles and engineer companies to make pontoon bridges etc., plus their vehicles were either amphibious or snorkel capable, and lightly armored to be faster and go further and float.
@@jintsuubest9331 A Leopard can be driven under water. It's not something the commander would just do. It would need surveying to make sure the bank on the other side and the river or lake bottom was suitable.
I swam a M113a1 at Fort Knox in the Eighties. When I got to Germany 4 years latter after Korea and Ft Irwin we had M3 Bradleys we changed over to the a1 model which could not swim. I much preferred the extra armor over being able to go on a river cruise
You should do a video on the blind spots in combat that the BMP has. I would also include the angle of depression that the armaments in the turret have or lack. If you're close enough not only will the crew have trouble seeing you, but if they do they can't shoot you without opening the hatch.
If you are that close without infantery making you swiss cheese that bmp deserves to be blow out
I remember the issue of 'amphibiousness' from one of Victor Suvorov's books. In preparation for a big military showcase, they would fix steel rails to the riverbed so the armoured vehicles could cross without getting stuck in the mud.
Sounds about right, for a public demonstration.
And I think I remember him saying they laid concrete barriers to form lanes so the tanks wouldnt get turned around underwater.
Tancurile / tunurile autopropulsate..NU plutesc...merg pe fundul apei, care trebuie Pregătit înainte.. sau pe pod de pontoane/ bac mobil😊
"Why not just build a bridge" the other major problem is that follow on elements and/or service and support are not amphibious, thua often limiting the value of such operations. The bridgehead is nice, but until a proper bridge is secured/built, you're essentially tethered to that point rendering the crossing itself of somewhat marginal value versus just controlling the other side of the river by fires
thats where the M3 Amphibie comes into play. A ponton bridge vehicle/ferry, that can be hooked up with other M3´s to form a ferry, wich is capable of carrying MBT´s of 70t
Particularly loved the humour towards the end - "hogwash" - classic! 🤣👍
Love the Homer Simpson sr. reference in the image of the man yelling at a cloud.
It is fine. I also made the very same mistake, assuming that BMP is an amphibious vehicle. I had discussion with veterans who served in BMP vehicles and they had confirmed very sketchy definition of its amphibious capability and what pain it is in reality to actually do.
I first became suspicious of the claim the BMP was amphibious when I saw video of Egyptian BMPs crossing a bridge over the Suez Canal during the October War in 1973: if they were amphibious, why take up valuable bridge space & weight, especially since the Canal Crossing Operation was carefully planned in advance and if there had been one time when the crews would have had the chance to both prepare the vehicle for amphibious operations AND use it effectively in combat, this would have been it. Also, the BMP was a state of the art design at the time, and the vehicles used in that battle would have been new or nearly so. Getting a 50 year old vehicle to do it nowadays in far less ideal conditions would be far more difficult and probably not worth it.
@@wrathofachilles The BMP was designed for Middle and Western Europe. The Soviets and for example the NVA (GDR) knew that in average every 30 kms some water runs from north to south in Middle and West Europe. A river or a canal or whatever. They wanted to cross quick and give out fire without having to build bridges with all problems which comes with bringing on pontoons or some other system like moving on an open shore and hope you find a safe space to enter the other side,
Да, классовая позиция тут важна. Надо много работать в коллективе, чтобы приготовить сходни, чтобы миновать илистое дно и ещё одни сходни, чтобы взобраться на берег снова. Но попасть на сходни при скорости течения более 1,5 м/с на БМП-1 или БМП-2 практические не реально, можно попасть только редким методом "паром-самолёт" с использованием якоря. БМП-3, БТР-80 (82), БМД-3 (4), БТР-4, БТР-3Е1 имеют хорошие водомёты. Проблема в том, что на Украине в ВСУ и войсках ДНР и ЛНР нет даже рот укомплектованных только плавающей техникой, всегда есть 1-3 единицы автомобильной техники, которая не плавает. Примерно к тому же стандарту приходит и армия России, так как плавающих ТПК ЛуАЗ-967 в войсках уже нет.
tbh i do agree with you, with much of equipment taken out of storages i doubt that amphibious capabilities is still intac
Vai de ele😢..după 20-30 de ani..le poți da FOC😅😅😅..Nimic nu-i funcționează la parametri 😢..Riscul pentru echipaj e Foarte Mare..
I'm really enjoying the fact that the icon for "Most Equipment rather dated" is an old man yelling at clouds 😂 (7:01)
"Anything is amphibious, if you can get it back out of the water." ~Howard Tayler The same mind that gave us the maxim "Everything is air-droppable. At least once."
This presentation is very good. Thank you for citing your sources and for giving credit where it is due. Your advanced level and degree of research is refreshing.
Reminds me of the pictures of serveral sunk BMPs after one of the Russian attempts to cross the Siverskyi Donets during mid 2022
omg Estonian Czech Republic
That alot of dead seamen.
Ah yes, the Special Submergence Operation. Good times.
I viewed a video in 2022, of a recent attempt by either Ukrainians or Separatists to ford with a BMP... they made it nearly to the far shore, but near the end, the bow began to dip. The end of the video featured the BMP going submarine and disappearing, while the operators got their GoPro wet for the final twenty feet, as they swam to safety. I think the engine began revving intensely, as the rear lifted and it wasn't churning water anymore.
Every one of your videos is on point. You are one of the best military fact channels there are.
As a AFV it's still a revolution in its time. The water speed is not too important ,like any sailor you can also use the current to cross. I like the idea of using the back doors as fuel tanks. Thanks for your hard work and research.
Thank you for the enlightening video on the BMP's minimally amphibious capability.
Still winning tho :((
1:42 - I’m gonna guess the BMP 1’s atomic weapon defences don’t 100% function if its not 100% waterproof 😹
I'm going to guess it's a similar situation: very likely that it's radition/chemical weapon-proof in nearly ideal conditions following extensive preparation by the crew.
I'm gonna guess that it's atomic weapon defences never functioned and were a fairly tale they told the crews much like the hide under the table drills the US had for school children.
As a civil servant, I can say that we are at least amphibious...
Do you have a proper licence for that? Germans (civil servants) need to have a license to be allowed to swim
You float? You are a witch!
I recall a story, probably apocryphal, that the recent Russian Army river crossing exercises ran into such problems with the amphibious capability of vehicles that they simply gave up on combatting the silt and water pressure and just paved the area immediately underwater so it wouldn't be seen.
Much awaited, much appreciated excellent insights as usual from you.
Wow, with that much class consciousness being required for the amphibious operation of the vehicle, that makes ... Cuba the most amphibious operator of BMPs. Watch out Florida.
Theoretically speaking, assuming the crew is aware of all these factors, they could in theory prepare an entry point with time and hand tools. This however, severely limits the capabilities of the vehicle and raises the question if the vehicle also needs a prepared exit point. Assuming you also need to prepare an exit point, the amount of prep work required for these vehicles to be amphibious seems to raise questions on practicality of utilizing that capability at all. I guess you have a vehicle that can withstand some flooding in the general area though, so there's that.
Out of all Polish 1400 BWP-1 from the start of the service, none was maintained to keep floating capability or used to cross any water bigger than the puddle.
That's why I can find pictures of Polish BVP-1s crossing rivers and that's why the specification for the new IFV is also to be able to swim, even though no new IFV can?
8:56 Lack of firm class standpoint - that explains the problems 🙂
Thanks, I like your sense of humour.
The Public Servant analogy was pretty funny. Nice one! 👍
Glad you liked it!
Class! Class!!! We must now come to order to understand these procedures!
Any "amphibious" soviet vehicle requires like 3 days of crew work in preparation, a lot of skill from drivers and prayers from the rest of the people inside.
The thought of the vehicle sucking down into the much and mud on the river bottom reminded me immediately of that sensation when you walk in a river or lake with that muck.
the issue with more amphibious vehicles: even if you get into the water, getting out at the other side is the really hard part, especially if you are not the 1st in the column. it gets worse with every tracked vehicle stirring up the mud. so you try to change the place of exit by a few meters, and get stuck onto some unmarked dead trees pushing your hull up...
Thanks for the informative video on the BMP. I always heard "mixed messages" about BMPs swimming. Accepted that they would and hoped that they would fail.
9:00 A class-restricted piece of equipment?! Is this an RPG? And I don't mean a rocket-propelled grenade. :D
The way the BMP rocks around with so little interior space... no way the men inside aren't getting injured and beat to heck.
May be you have a look at the available footage of "Manöver Schild 84" held in Melnik (szech republik) 1984 and the performance of the BMP1 of the german MSR7. Crossing the Elbe at about 4.80m deep water with a turn during the crossing.
Germany and Czechoslovakia maintained their equipment very well compared to the Soviets. Although by the 1990s most of the seals had likely started to rot, despite maintenance. East German BMP-1s delivered in the 2000s were in good shape but with seals that don't function IIRC.
Pioniers -- always excellent sources of information ... no bias here
A 300L an hour pump is going to be using a 3/8" (1cm) discharge hose. A lot smaller than it initially sounds. Basically a small fountain pump. And those pump 300L at 25' (7.62m) of head. It is doomed.
Getting stuck on entry is a problem that plagues almost all amphibious vehicles and was a major reason most amphibious jeeps were lend-leased to the Soviet Union, US Army testing determined the supposedly amphibious jeeps often got stuck trying to cross streams regular jeeps could ford. Snorkeling tanks also failed because river bottoms are made of mud.
Pretty sure "no loss of combat effectiveness" refers not to the crossing itself, but the fact that it is fully effective upon reaching the shore and does not require removal of amphibious attachments, as opposed to other soviet vehicles like T72 that use snorkel and underwater crossing.
With most amphibious APCs they need to put the engine somewhere in the middle. (Like on the German Fuchs or the BMP-3). When you have the heaviest armor and the engine at the front of the vehicle, it gets too front heavy to swim properly.
9:05 you know things are great if the solution to technical problems (how to get metal box through water) are suppose ideological purity.
There's amphibious, like the AAVP-7 Amtrak and MT_LB. ...And then there's "amphibious" like the BMP and M113. I mean, you're technically correct calling them "amphibious." The BMP and M113 (well, *_some_* versions) float and can go through the water... It's just the question of... would you *_actually_* want to try doing it?
Depends on whether you need to get them back out of the water doesn't it? Probably best to assault a place with lots of boat ramps on the far side of the river.
@@IceWolfLoki Realistically I think even if you can't get them out of the water they could still help you clear out a beachhead, provided that you can get at least some other vehicles on the shore to aid with pulling the BMPs out of there later. You have some firepower and armor there and can also probably get the infantry out on the other side of the river, if the problem is just getting stuck on the beach. At least it beats he alternative of the infantry having to use some makeshift boats or rafts to cross. I guess it all depends on how badly you need to be on the other side.
I remember amphibious training in our Canadian AVGP Grizzlies we, admittedly, on a prepared bank, were told to stop several meters short of the bank, go hatches down, engage the propellers, hit the lever which raised the splash board at the front- and then charge into the water and hit the water as fast as possible and make as big a "f*n splash" as we could. This would help us not getting stuck in the mud on entry, but exiting, not so much...
Lot of APCs were designed to cross rivers After years of use they loose that capability due to wear and lack of maintenance
There is a reason why the British abandoned the concept of amphibious wheeled vehicles for the BAOR. Maintenance costs for the Alvis Stalwart were probably the worst of the lot but you can go right back to the thoroughly uneconomical Austin Gypsy project to see why amphibious vehicles are so expensive to operate.
Please do a video on us army breakdown like there snipers and stuff and how they are integrated with thr rifleman
Ok, than the other side I think becomes also interesting: How effective are Western vehicles with 'principal amphibious capabillity' like the AMX10,..? (Yes with the AdOn-Armour not at all, but stripped of the later added Armour plates)
Having had some experience with the seals on hatches in turret roofs (Hey! Why is rain still coming down my neck with the hatch closed?"), I'm willing to bet that "Check hatch seals" does not magically fix seals that have been dinged and nicked over the years with boots, gun barrels, and entrenching tools of troops clambering in and out of those rear doors. So basically all that "Check hatch seals" step is going to do is let the troops on that vehicle have extra time to reflect on how they are going to drown, because I seriously doubt that if they report "Seals are ripped up or missing!", it's going to get them off the hook for the water crossing or get them a new BMP, or even just a new set of seals to somehow install before it's time to move out.
The BMP is only amphibious when all of the relevant parts are undamaged and present. In practice this means the BMP is not amphibious
I think when MasterMilo gets his BMP-1 ARV working we will get to see the amphibious capability...probably with some modifications to make it work better ;)
Wether it works or not it takes more guts than I have to drive upwards of 15 tonnes of afv into deep water, bridging equipment or go around if you don't mind Sir. Thanks for the content.
Maybe do same video about the BTR-series? BTR-60 is bad at it, if you attach a rack for backpacks over the rear of the vehicle. In Taipalsaari 1991 there was an accident with FDF BTR-60, that sunk into the lake with seven conscripts inside it. Without the rack, it might not have happened. Maybe.
Good vid. I noted that at the failed Bilohorivka river crossing the only vehicles that were used amphibiously were newer BMP-2Ms. There were in such limited supply that the bridge head force was a coy(-) instead of a Bn crossing the river via assault crossing as is Russian doctrine. The reality is that the Russian can't conduct a river crossing as in their doctrine because the material is old and not actually amphibious. And thus the river crossing operation becomes predictable and vulnerable.
2:10 I don't remember if by this time the Soviets had switched to a 20km/h attack frontage, but for most of their history a 10km/h attack frontage was standard. In theory swimming at 7km/h doesn't dramatically reduce combat effectiveness compared to 10km/h, and it can still fire ie: do an attack. In theory. Good luck with the unstabilized gun.
0:10 when someone starts a video with this I watch to the end for more
Yeah, we read that the BMP was amphibious when it first came out, and I think there were pictures of them swimming.
Is like watches, be waterproof doesn't means it is submersible. M113 also have the same confusion.
So I don't know about said German engineer or the operating manual, but maintenance manuals are very clear that you need to maintain watertight seals for them not to fail. This is pretty much the sole problem (overwhelming majority of failures with BMPs not being amphibious-capable). Everything else is minor in comparison. Maintain the seals. Routinely. Or they will fail. As for the rest, my understanding is that BMPs don't do well firing while in swimming mode. And "loss of combat potential" usually refers to the vehicle getting on the other shore and being able to fully engage in combat with all its equipment and infrantrymen capable of combat to the fullest extent. I.e. if water ingress is too much, you will have rising water inside the vehicle, which will rapidly reach things like various internal mechanical systems, ammunition and infrantrymen. Which will degrade combat performance of all of those elements, forcing either some time to get everything back to full combat potential or entering combat with some systems compromised by water and possibly infrantrymen with utterly waterlogged gear that adds massive amount of weight AND severely degrades combat performance in cold weather conditions.
I'm a little curious what the flooding of the interior would do the vehicle's electrical systems?
Can not comment on BMP but during my service with Red Army i was MTLBU crew member.Theoretically it was amfibious but we newer have training on water crossing,how to prep vechicle to crossing etc.And it was troops in East Germany which be considered best of best for combat readyness
From what I heard in polish army it takes two days of preparations for bwp-1 to swim in a lake during exercise
St Lawrence river runs 18km/hr on average.. those are small numbers
I think there is a little misunderstanding here. The point if the amphi. capability not being stopped because by even the smallest channel. There is a VERY large difference between crossing a small 10-20 meters wide canal or such a river as the Danube or the Rhein...
yes this video has very clear biases and possibly even failure to realize the design intent of the BMP. Nobody designed it do beach assaults, nobody designed it to cross Europe's largest and fastest rivers. There are plenty of videos on youtube of BMPs easily launching into, crossing and exiting small to medium sized rivers or lakes.
Small rivers can usually just driven through and they are generally faster running as well. Not to mention that I state that it was intended for that as well.
How often do they replace the foam floatation assistance on the BMP-2? Foam degrades over time. Soaking it in water regularly and subjecting it to the vibration of an AFV can't be helpful.
Wir durften 1987 unseren M-113 auch nicht in die dänische Nordsee fahren 🙂. Angeblich konnte der ja auch schwimmen.
To be fair, don't all "amphibious" vehicles have problems getting into and out of the water? For example, I am thinking of the UK Army's Alvis Stalwart 6x6 load carrier and the US's LARC 5. Both have the same payload (5t), same top speed, but the LARC's vastly bigger size and its boat hull means it can handle surf fairly easily while the Stalwart was strictly for river and lake crossings. I'm told the LARC on the other hand has almost zero chance of climbing up most natural river banks (it wants nice flat beaches), whereas the 6x6 drive and lack of differential gives the Stalwart a fighting chance. But at a bad river bank, I'd guess the tracked BMP 1 would do better than the wheeled Stalwart. And the Stalwart was loved for it's ability to climb in and climb out. Does anybody know more about this?
As one Ukrainian expert (Taras Chmut) described it: "During training we spent 2 days to prepare 3 BMPs for river crossing. And we still almost drowned one of them, we could barely get them back on shore. It could barely swim, but it could not get on the beach on its own. The requirement to make vehicle amphibious is idiotic, you not going to cross the river in combat environment. More armour would be more useful, than this nonsense"
Echos of the Zero
Warsaw Pact equipment was intended for the offensive - a blitz to the Rhine and perhaps the Atlantic. That meant longer ranged vehicles with greater fuel efficiency, and lighter armor so they could use any bridge. Vast numbers of not merely paratroopers but airdropped tanks, IFVs, artillery, an anti air to seize and hold bridges plus all their attack helicopters were armored and could hold several infantry to seize bridges too. Masses of bridgelaying vehicles and combat engineers. Amhib and snorkel too but last resort
@@IrishCarney and that is only partially true. T-Tanks dont have lighter armor, they are smaller and thus are lighter, their armor protection is comparable or surperior to contemporary NATO tanks (T-72B for example has a similar armor thickness in the frontal arc to an early production M1 Abrams). Bridging equipment was distributed on Brigade Level in limited numbers, meaning you got 1-2 armored bridge layers per 3 bataillons of MBT´s. Fuel efficiency is also not really a strong point of T-Tanks. T-80 consumes almost as much as M1, T-72 is the winner in efficiency but still does consume similar amounts to a Leoaprd 1. Combat weight was also not due to using bridges. Warsaw Pact forces assumed that all bridges they could reach would be blown up in the first place. The assault to the rhine was an rough estimate if NATO forces would break and they could reach and secure the eastern rhine banks before REFORGER kicked into high gear. (About a Week before the first fresh waves arrived at Ramstein Airbase, so you had to reach the Rhine in 7 days to cut off NATO resupply and fortify your positions for the next incoming wave coming from France etc) otherwise they intended to grind down NATO forces in frontal battles until they reached the Rhine.
they're using ancient unmaintained equipment without the proper resources and planning that would have originally been part of the operations of said equipment and they're bitching that it doesn't work as intended. Amazing.
Slightly different class of vehicle, but Finnish Patria APCs have pretty good amphibious capabilities. I was unable to find a source after a quick search, but as I recall, Patria Pasi vehicles donated to Ukraine might have been used in river crossings in the Kharkiv offensive. Here are videos of some newer models swimming: kzhead.info/sun/obeEdLxsaYdpdJE/bejne.html kzhead.info/sun/YMZ6mdKoiKilgZ8/bejne.html
Soviet PTS is still used in my country. Once a month river navy unit goes for a few spin whit it. Generaly empty whit no cargo, but sometimes whit whole army truck on it. Wery impresive on water, jets are extremly strong. On full trotle waves are making a chaos in local marina. Its all mater of maintainance and training.
"Amphibious" just as the M113 was amphibious, suitable for inland river crossings, not coming ashore onto a beach.
I thought it was obvious that the BMP wasn't meant to swim across choppy water, but I suppose some people watching the videos needed clarification?
Oh, I remember from my own training. Only if you could memorize at least half of the couplets of the national anthem, did you unlock the ability to reload your rifle. Someone in my position was required to learn and sing the entiriety of "America F*ck Yeah" before you were able to operate US built software on our laptops. 😉
Here’s a example of a BMP river crossing kzhead.info/sun/hLWvdc6spax_gp8/bejne.html
Thank you !
The water entry was wild. I wonder how many times it did that and how well the vehicle functioned afterwards. There sure seemed like a lot of water getting into the exhaust system. Maybe the exhaust blew hard enough to keep the water out? Thanks for the link.
@@ddegn If it didn't function it's a problem for soldiers with low "class consciousness".
looks like it did very well. This video alone puts into question all the whining of the German and Ukrainian "experts" quoted in this video. They jumped it into the river at high speed off a steep bank, it crossed the river, it drove up an un-prepared bank on the other side. Looks like it worked just as intended.
@@murmaider2 "Looks like it worked just as intended." I agree it sure looks like it worked as intended. What we don't know is how much maintenance it required after the swim. It sure looks like the location has been used multiple times. I could be the BMP we saw is well maintained. The water crossing we saw may be a common occurrence. It sure looked impressive.
Bernard missed a trick with "sink or schwimm?" given most footage is of ex DDR BMPs XD
"Equipment is rather dated" *shows a picture of Morgan Freeman attacking a head crab with a crowbar* Yeah, that's pretty dated.
The BMP is a marvelous invention of war. It shaped all IFVs developed by Western nations to this very day. It's influence was so great, that many nations considered doing away with tanks altogether in favor of wheeled or tracked IFVs.
That aside is the BMP as a armoured vehicle and soldier storage a good design or is it a dead end in terms of design?
the fact that there are 2 new designs theoretically intended to be used instead of BMP-2 and BMP-3 might be an indicator
Considering if the BMP was originally intended to cross though the watercourses of the Fulda Gap, and the portion of the Deutsch pork industry that might have been in the area, did the manual consider hogwash as a crossing hazard? 😊
so maybe I better read up my Marx & Engels complete edition or should I start with the complete works of Lenin? which one gives me better buyoncy?
I am guessing the BTRs have an advantage of having a higher freeboard, which would help in a river crossing compared to a BMP
yeah but they struggle to get out of the river on the other side....
I Love your dry humor
It's light, fast low profile vehicle that can stand hits from rifles, machine guns and shrapnels from artillery. It can swim and go almost anywhere, and you can put on it small turret with 30mm autocannon and thermal sigh.
The BMP series of infantry fighting vehicles are amphibious designs that become all but watery graves unless maintained to such a meticulous degree that one could never hope to use it for any sustained armed campaign.
Typical case of sacrificing so much for a barely present capacity. If BMPs could *practically* cross rivers, they wouldn't have been artilleried to death at that infamous river crossing last year. Also, class consciousness xD
And you can fire your individual weapons effectively while the vehicle is in motion. ;)
The Chinese seem to have the only functional amphibious direct-fire personnel carriers outside the US, which they showcase extensively in their Taiwan-scare videos.
Even if the BMP crosses the river successfully, the support trucks that support the Battalion and Regiments arent. So they have to secure either a bridge (preferable), or a site to build one eventually. Also, most Motorized and Mechanized units will end up with around a Company of T-series tanks that most definitely aren't amphibious at all. This means they will need a bridge, sooner rather than later. The purpose of a amphibious crossing realistically cannot push the element very far past its line-of-comms.
India has a few thousand pieces of BMP-2 and are really pleased with their river crossing ability
i always figured that they know this, and would only use new vehicles with special river operation teams. thats what i would do... but