Joseph Paul
By My Hand Designs LLC
4221 N Park Ave
Indianapolis, IN 46205
317-931-0561


Greg - Of course the BMP-1 provided AT capability and supporting fire for RPG armed troops. Why would armor fear Infantry if they did not have such available? The M-2 did the same thing sporting a 25mm cannon accurate to 2000+ meters and with the M791 rated at 25mm penetration at 60 degrees out to 1300 m it is certainly possible for side and rear hits at close range and closer to 90 degrees to be enough to stop T-55s or even T-72s as reported during the Gulf War (The M919 APFSDSDU-T  round does not make an appearance until 1996 - 5 years after the Gulf War). It carried TOW missiles that out ranged the Soviet AT-4 and 6 infantry that could be equipped with LAW rockets for close defense. Mostly the infantry was there to kill OpFor infantry that was busy trying to get a shot at an AFV/IFV.


The BMP-1 carried 4-5 rounds of an AT missile that was made not very effective by virtue of being hard to control from the turret. The 73mm Grom gun was unreliable beyond 500 meters. The vehicle carried an RPG-7 and that may be what armed 3 of the 7 man team (RPG gunner, loader, assistant). Probably no more than 6 rounds of a munition with accuracy issues past 300 meters. The M2 was designed to be better than this - it is faster, has more protection of the crew/infantry from small arms fire (something the BMP-1 struggled with), out ranges the BMP-1's gun and missile armament giving it stand-off capability. It has great cross country mobility as part of its mission is to keep up with the M-1 to provide that infantry screen to stop the AT armed Soviet infantry from getting a good shot off. And that mobility was designed for use in Europe where American forces were expected to be agile and not be a wall to be hammered at.

I am not at all sure why your analysis doesn't show that.

Ooh! here is a little treatise on the employment of the BMP by the Soviets culled from their sources. Please not how often mention is made of preparing for a friendly nuclear attack.

On 6/20/2015 11:49 PM, Greg Chalik wrote:

Joseph,
The mission of any system is elaborated by what it does, not by what its called.
For example if I call the school bus a Transatlantic Ghormophonic Extravoyager, its system function would remain to collect children from their homes and to deliver them to school.

What was the function of the BMP-1?
It was armed with a gun firing an anti-tank rocket, a guided anti-tank missile, and had a team of anti-tank rocket-propelled grenadiers as passengers. It also had a team of riflemen to provide support for the grenadiers and the anti-tank missile operator when dismounted. Given that most passengers of the BMP-1 and most of its weapons were to be used in either anti-tank role or to support anti-tank combat tasks, the BMP-1 was an anti-tank vehicle.

The BMP-1 replaced the BTR-50, which was also an anti-tank vehicle. It was unusually large, and seated 20 'infantrymen'...on Moscow parades. In the field it seated ten artillery crew, towed a 100mm anti-tank gun and the rest of the cargo space was occupied by ammunition.

25mm APFSDS-DU rounds could under certain circumstances penetrate some of the T-55 and T-72 armour.
The Bradley vehicle needs to find itself in a favourable orientation to the target first.
However, the M919 ammunition was approved for production in 1996, three years after the Cold War ended.
The chances that a small (~100g) penetrator rod of causing serious enough damage to destroy an MBT is small, but not to be discounted of course.

Greg

On 19 June 2015 at 03:35, Joseph Paul <josephnjody@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"The Bradley was designed to 'outdo' the BMP-1, but its designers didn't realise what the BMP-1 design mission requirements were."

The mission of the BMP-1 was to provide mobility for infantry so they could keep pace with the armored elements and to provide supporting direct fire and anti-armor capability to those infantry.

The mission of the Bradely is to provide mobility for infantry so they can keep pace with the armor and to provide supporting direct fire and anti-armor capability to those infantry.

I am not seeing a failure here particularly in light of the successes in actually killing T-55 and T-72 tanks with 25mm rounds.

So just what do you think the BMP-1's mission was?


Joseph Paul
By My Hand Designs LLC
4221 N Park Ave
Indianapolis, IN 46205
317-931-0561


-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto http://archives.simplelists.com

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto 
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=Nel5xpoGLb0LMYhkOL8MKwQpkNZ0aa5p