On 21 Jun 2015 at 18:30, Joseph Paul wrote: > 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-TÂ 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. The M-2 is also rather newer, much bigger, and rather more expensive. As for the limitations of the BMP-1: The gun was never intended for long-range work. It was intended to cover the short range zone where the ATGW wasn't effective, to give a more rapid response, and to also give fire support to the infantry against other infantry. It didn't need more reach than 500m. As for the TOW out-ranging the AT-4 (and earlier AT-3) - as in Europe the vast majority of engangements involving armour vs armour would've been at 800m or less, due to visibility and line-of-sight, having more range than a couple of kilometres is a waste. > 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. Reality of cold-war planning. If the US manuals didn't mention this, they were being delusional.
