Talk:BMP-3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Table is titled BMP-2![edit]

But the table is titled BMP-2!

Ok, I added a table for the BMP-3. The article is really about all the vehicles in the BMP family. JNi

Translation "combat vehicle infantry" is incorrect[edit]

The translation "combat vehicle infantry" is incorrect. Пехоты here is in the genitive; the literal translation is "combat vehicle of infantry" or for a less awkward-sound translation "infantry combat/fighting vehicle."

I meant "litteral" in the sense of word-for-word. Of course, the meaning is not word for word, but that's already covered by the introductory sentence, which identifies the BMP-3 as an infantry combat vehicle.
Urhixidur 04:58, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Death trap?[edit]

I dunno if anyone has heard this but during the war in Chechnya the Russian troops did not normaly ride inside the BMP-3s because they where very vulnerable. --Theredstarswl 03:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to search around for information about BMP-3's in Chechnya, but couldn't find anything related to any perceived vulnerability. However, I did find alot of pages that praised the BMP-3 and heavily criticised the American LAV-3 and Stryker vehicles. So I guess we shouldn't add this "death trap" opinion to the article, for now at least. --129.94.6.28 02:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably no more of a death trap than any other APC. APCs typically have a lot less armour than tanks (the M2 Bradley is just about the only one which comes close, although it carries less troops than most APCs for that reason). They're pretty much proof against shrapnel and small arms at medium to long distances and that's about it. If they're used in an environment where the enemy has access to rockets, mines, shaped charges, heavy machine guns and light cannon they're not much more than mobile targets. In that kind of an environment, APCs have to rely on offensive firepower to survive. At least troops sitting on top can jump off and run away if it comes under fire, which isn't really possible for those riding inside, hence that tactic. 202.181.8.3 01:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was a practice in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Chechnya, where troops in various APCs were afraid of ambush by RPG. See the second section of tank desant. Presumably, a factor was also that the entire section had eyes and rifles out to suppress an RPG gunner's position. I haven't seen any actual evidence for whether it was safer or not. —Michael Z. 2005-12-5 15:55 Z

I was reading a book on Soviet armor during the cold war and it states that they still use magnesium alloy for tank/APC construction which according to the book burns very hot, It may be a contributing factor. --Theredstarswl 22:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also may be part reputation from the BMP-1&2 where the rear doors were unarmored fuel tanks. This was very bad when hit, especialy if it was an incendiary round.--Davus321 08:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The BMP-3 is not an "APC", it's an IFV, Infantry Fighting Vehicle. --Dudtz 01:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claim about all ATGMs require vehicle to be stationary[edit]

"AT-10 Stabber suffers from the drawbacks of all ATGMs: the vehicle has to remain stationary while firing". That is not true. According to the producer's web site "Possibility to fire from a halt, on the move and afloat with the same effectiveness using all weapons." http://www.kurganmash.ru/eng/BMP_3.html

Already T-64 could fire its ATGM from move.

I don't know the answer to this question, but it would be true that the vehicle has to remain exposed while firing. —Michael Z. 2006-09-10 14:38 Z

Which missile?[edit]

9M133 Kornet (AT-10 Stabber)

I think these are two different missiles. Which is fired by the BMP-3?—Michael Z. 2006-09-10 14:37 Z

Good spot - it's the AT-10 that it fires (through the barrel). Megapixie 14:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AT-10 vs. MBTs[edit]

"The AT-10 is capable of penetrating the armour of all MBTs currently deployed."
This is a 10cm missile....i wonder why the Russians make 15cm missiles, if the AT-10 can kill "all". If it would be a top-attack ATGM, then the article might be even right.

Tank armor depends on angle. M1 is designed for brief head-to-head tank battles, and has very good frontal and turret armor, which stops even 125-mm HEAT rounds and can only be penetrated by AT-13 and higher. However, the side and back armor can be pierced by a simple RPG. Some other countries have different design principles, for instance T-80 is focused on high intensity combat, so focuses on high rate of fire and all-round protection. AT-10 can destroy any tank with a side, back or top hit, or weaker tanks at any angle. More sophisticated and power systems aim for weapon parity when confronting tanks head-to-head. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tank with chobham,spaced armour,and reactive could protect against AT-10s. Active armour could protect against ATGMs well. Dudtz 10/20/06 10:20 PM EST

It heavily depends on the point and angle, and on the desired result - total destruction, mobility kill, blinding. The front armor is usually very good. Sides are partially protected. The top of the rear is almost unprotected. Everything outside armor can be disrupted even by 20mm autocannon or RPG. So different weapons are still in use. A number of ATGMs and RPGs have tandem charges, which include one exploding the reactive armor and the other piercing the main. The story with Merkavas was an example. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 08:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reactive armour should be able to disperse most of the molten metal from the first explosion,the Chobham should be able to protect against the second charge,and spaced armour would also help allot. Dudtz 10/21/06 5:17 PM EST

It's not like all of this doesn't help - but the ATGMs and RPGs are also progressing, and the armor is always harder to improve than the weapon. The full amount of armor can only be placed in the frontal arc. The tracks in partucular are unarmored (the skirts don't protect from anti-tank weapons), air intakes have problems, and the upper side is weak. Practically all tanks have a similar armoring scheme (reactive-composite). The RPGs have mostly been repelled except for mobility kills, blinding and above/side shots, but heavier ATGMs count for a good percentage of tank kills nowadays, including against the best armored tanks. Except for frontal arc, even a RPG can be effective - as we already have in the Chobham armour article, "one M1 was hit on the side skirts, below the turret ring by PG-7VR, a tandem charge RPG, in the Iraq War. The jet penetrated the skirting armour and side hull armour, then traversed across the tank's interior and finally penetrated 1.5 to 2 inches into the hull armour on the other side." ATGMs are generally more powerful and can hit better spots. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To end this discussion... Khrizantema can engage MBT at 6 km, while Kornet - at 5 km, which means that BMP can destroy MBTs succesfully at long ranges, since it will be out of their range. Abrmas and otehr MBTs which can not fire missiles in long range engagement will be at disadvantage. Systems like Trophy and Arena could intercept ATGm, but it greatly depends on ATGM speed, and since we do not know the speed of both khrizantema or kornet, it is hard to say. 74.98.216.68 17:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Pavel Golikov 5 September, 2007, 1:22.[reply]

Captain Vyacheslav Mironov's memoirs[edit]

Someone posted a blockquote from what appears to be a book by this author, and I was just wondering if anyone who has access to the book could post its ISBN? --Edward Sandstig 18:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN 5-902005-01-9 for the 1st Russian printed edition. English translation never been printed and exist only online at ArtOfWar.ru --SkifAlef 05:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combat record / Book by Mironov[edit]

First of all, Mironov's book is not memoirs, it's a work of fiction largely based on his experience in Chechnya. It's important to understand the difference.

Fiction means that the book is a fabrication, e.g. a story made up by the author. Mironov's book, as I understand it, is a first hand account of his experiences (I read the partial English translation). So what do you mean that it's fiction? Toby Douglass 19:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Publisher's foreword to the Russian edition of the book (see "Примечание публикатора") specifically says that all names, geographical locations and time frames have been changed and the book must not be viewed as the actual report. Thus, this book is fiction, not memoirs.
It is common enough when writing about real events where it is prudent to protect identities to change names and times and so on, while still telling a true story. This doesn't mean the material is fiction. For example, when people write in blogs, they always changes names and places, so people remain anonymous. The story told is absolutely true, though.
No, for memoirs such disclaimer is not common at all. "Memoirs", where names, locations and time frames have been changed would be a joke and disrespect to the readers, for there's no way to judge how much of the story is true. On the other hand, books of fiction quite often have similar disclaimers to limit author's liability for making false claims.--C1010 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does, however, lead to the question of how much is being fabricated, exaggerated or distorted. If you can distort location and time, you can distort action, and/or the significance of action. It is quite obvious that Mironov had no great feelings about Chechenya, and once you stop holding yourself to truth, it is easy to alter a detail here, a fine bit there, all to prove your point.
  • Take for example Viktor Suvorov. In his books Liberator and Inside the Soviet Army, he has blurbs about what supposedly happened to him. However, a quick look tells you he can't even keep his story straight. In Liberators, he graduated from Kharkov and was immediately thrown into a Training Tank Regiment (originally equipped with the very newest T-64) preparing for the big Soviet exercise/demonstration in 1967. In Inside the Soviet Army, he only started after a one month leave, and he was placed as a company commander of motor-rifle troops in a Category B motor rifle regiment. Since the emphasis was different in the two books, I think it obvious he just wrote what was convenient. Kazuaki Shimazaki 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Publisher's foreword also warns that the book contains many errors and confusions when it comes to technical characteristics of different weapons and armored vehicles, for Mironov's military specialty was Communication Equipment (that is, he was never trained to use BMPs or conduct infantry operations) and several years had passed before Mironov started to write his book. --C1010 13:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mentally reject this because I think what Mironov wrote came from his actual experiences. It may be he gave things the wrong name, but since I think he actually *did* the things he wrote about, I can't see what he writes is *itself* in error - it *cannot* be, since it happened - but I can see he might for example have thought a T-64 was a T-62 or that the certain weapons were in use when in fact they were different weapons, etc.
Actually, it makes his "testimony" (if it was such) VERY suspect. Even counting the narrower degree of specialization with Soviet officers, if he can't adequately remember the correct technical characteristics of different weapons to get by a civilian editor, his technical knowledge is very poor and he is no position to judge the combat readiness of anything but (maybe) his radio. Kazuaki Shimazaki 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may mentally reject whatever you like, it doesn't make it true. As per the Publisher's warning, the book contains many errors, confusions and intentional changes, making it impossible to use it as a credible, verifiable reference. Maybe he wasn't talking about BMP-3 at all, maybe he was talking about BTR-333 or XYZ-4 or BMP-95E, or maybe he made it all up for more drama or as an excuse, no way to know. Therefore, this book should NOT be used as a reference for this article at all, unless you want the article to be a collection of anecdotes, rumors, assumptions, opinions... anything but facts.--C1010 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, the link currently provided includes this line: "Translation includes 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,18 parts of novel". This, combined with the general style of narration, suggests that it is almost certainly a story written based on his experience in Chechenya, with an unknown amount of fabrication and exaggeration.
I didn't put any weight on that word when I read it, since it's written by someone to whom English is a second language. They may well have chosen the word improperly, since one meaning of novel is simply a book.
He did do well enough to translate the rest of the chapters, did he? Kazuaki Shimazaki 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, even if it was a memoir, this can happen as well). The rest of what I write will proceed on the assumption he's writing this as real stuff, not fiction. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second, he talks about experimental BMP-3s, not serial production ones. See the original, if in doubt.

He says,
"So this battalion arrived on new, experimental BMP-3s." Experimental means "serving the ends of or used as a means of experiment (that is, test/trial)". Your idea that "experimental" is used to emphasize "new" doesn't make any sense to me, especially considering the quote above. If he wanted to emphasize new he would've said "completely new" or "brand new".--C1010 13:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're inteprenting experimental in line with your view that they are untested/new from development, and I'm interprenting experimental to mean that its the first time they were using them (partially in use to emphasize "new"). I back up my view though because BMP-3s came into service in 1990 and Mironov got them in 1995 - I simply cannot see they are new *per se* when Mironov gets them. I don't see that you've successfully argued against that five year gap.
It's not my interpretation, it's Webster's dictionary definition of the word "experimental". I find it funny you're asking me to explain errors in Mironov's book. Look, it's YOUR reference, YOU claim it's reliable, not me. If BMP-3s "came into service in 1990" and Mironov claimed, in 1995, that they were "new, experimental" then it's just what the Publisher warns you about: the book contains many errors and must not be viewed as the actual, reliable report.--C1010 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Since we were under our full strength during the departure, we were complemented by one more battalion from Novosibirsk. According to the initial plan, we had to complete all preparations by autumn and depart for Tadzhikistan for integrating into the 201[st] division or some peacekeeping force; anyhow, to fight for God knows what or who. So this battalion arrived on new, experimental BMP-3s."
My reading of this is that the word experimental is to emphasize the "new". It is not meant to indicate the vehicle ITSELF was experimental; indeed, it could not be, because no experimental unit is manufactured in large numbers and distributed to field units for use in combat. Also, of couse, the BMP-3 passed from testing to full use in combat units in 1990, and the events in question are in 1995. There is simply no way the BMP-3s were *themselves experimental*. Toby Douglass 19:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Russia, many items of a particular system can be produced before it officially enters service. As one example, the A-50 Mainstay started regular production ~1984 and only fully accepted ~1989. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, if the vehicles had been in full service for five years, it is unlikely such major problems were not discovered by anybody. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That I dispute - this is the Russian Army, massively corrupt and brutually uncaring, being "supported" by a massively corrupt and inefficient industry. I think it entirely likely that the BMP-3 was a dog and it simply wasn't fixed.
I think you are allowing your disdain for the Russian Army (though somewhat justified, I'd agree) to tilt your views regarding the probabilities. However, the BMP-3 had been extensively tested [1]. Furthermore, if failures of such devastating extent as reported by Mironov existed, it would be hard to explain how they managed to get other countries like the UAE to purchase it after evaluation several years before Chechenya (sure, some problems did occur in UAE service, but hardly of Mironov's magnitude). Kazuaki Shimazaki 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third, in one of his interviews Mironov said that his book should not be used as a technical reference, for he may have gotten some technical details wrong.

I find it unlikely he would have mis-remembered such large matters. You don't mistakenly remember that the BMP-3 can't fire on the move and the gun jams after the first round. Toby Douglass 19:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the Publisher's foreword to the Russian edition of the book or my comments above. --C1010 13:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confounding the deliberate changing of names and places with the idea of the material being actually factually *inaccurate*. Mironov fought and rode with BMP-3s. I do not think he would have mistakenly thought they could not fire or work when in fact they could.

Forth, I think it's wrong to include all kind of speculations about the reason for equipment failures, especially considering the above. We simply do not know.--C1010 03:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPECULATIONS!? it's a PRIMARY SOURCE. It is PRECISELY what we should include. We can also add comments regarding the material, but excluding a first hand source? the idea is crazy!
See my comments above. --C1010 13:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, I consider your revert improper. You've fully removed, for example, information about the gun jamming (while retaining the computer problems!) - and strongly downplayed the extent of the problems Mironov reports. This is wrong, since it is in fact filtering and distorting the primary source information. What Mironov says needs to be reported in full. Comments can then be added.
I have to disagree. Please read my comments above. --C1010 13:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I await your timely reply before making further edits. Toby Douglass 19:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, Primary Sources are potentially highly suspect, especially with a conflict of interest involved. The vehicle has been in service for 5 years, so as you said it is probably not so new and experimental. Yet he and his fellow officers could not make the BMP work. It is either him or the BMP. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mironov is writing about an armoured fighting vehicle; all the troops can do is at best put it in its original, intended state. If then it fails to work, what else can they do? their efforts would only fix the vehicle if it were defective from its original state, since they would be capable of maintenance work. The BMP-3 entered service in 1990. Mironov used it in 1995. Mironov found that it didn't work; given that it's a vehicle fully in service with the army, this must mean - as he said - that the design was broken.
What I suggest is that I put in Mironov quote, and point out that the BMP-3 was accepted into service in 1990, had the problems described in 1995, and that over a decade has since passed and these problems may have been fixed. Toby Douglass 11:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's my firm opinion that "Combat Record" section should be removed for now, until we get more credible and reliable references. The only reference we have so far was written by a specialist in Communication Equipment (not BMPs or infantry operations) and the Publisher warns that the book contains many errors, confusions, intentional changes and must not be viewed as the actual report. Thus, this reference is not credible or reliable or verifiable and should not be used.--C1010 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm saying that they couldn't put it in its "original, intended" state. The BMP-3 was actually built rather conservatively. To take one of Mironov's targets, the sights - they are old, rather tested models. The commander's sight is the TKN-3, which is used since the T-62 [2]. The gunner's 1K13 sight is slightly newer, but the AT-10 it supports went into service in 1983 (so the sight must have too), and it was considered sufficiently old hat that it was exported to East Germany for upgrading T-55s [3] before it was assimilated by West Germany. The stabilizer was but a modification of the BMP-2's 2E52.
So, at least some of the equipment mentioned is old, tested hat. The vehicle was extensively tested over several years, with teething problems that were being ground out and no devastating problems. The vehicle was developed in the last era of the Soviets - who if inefficient, at least had raw resources. And it had no devastating flaws for its importers. So, major design problem = low probability.
Against that I look at the men. While the BMP-3 borrows a lot from older stuff (and thus may be little technical challenge for a tank officer), it is still sophisticated compared to the BMP-1 or -2 used by the motor-rifle troops. Add that to the fact the platoon and company commanders of the suspect battalion are relatively new, many of whom are post-Soviet vintage (thus very poorly trained) ... the conscripts doing some of the day-to-day light stuff are even worse off ... the objective factors line up in such a way that human error is much more likely to be predominant over hardware error.
That's why I say it is the BMP-3 or Mironov (and his fellow officers). If the BMP-3 was a pristine machine, they have only themselves to blame for the massive losses they took. So, conflict of interest, and the objective factors IMO aren't on their side.
  • In conclusion, I suspect what really happened was like this: if BMP-3s were brought into action, they may have some teething problems (this will be their combat debut), which may even have caused the deaths of some. Mironov is so bitter about it that he exaggerates the problems. But being so technically unqualified he can't even get past his civilian editor, he exaggerates too far and creates a low-probability case. Thus the current statement is probably the accurate one. Kazuaki Shimazaki 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explosive Reactive armour[edit]

Can it use explosive reactive armour or is it too weak?Agre22 (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)agre22[reply]

No HEAT round for 100mm gun?[edit]

I would have expected it to carry at least a few. HEAT is too useful for an AFV with a 100mm crew-served gun to carry 40 rounds of ammunition and have a loadout of HE only. Even if it is not as accurate at 2+km as Western systems, even if the 100mm HEAT is less effective than Western 105mm/120mm kinetic penetrators, still it could be extremely effective against other light AFVs. A 100mm HEAT round with a fragmentation sleeve of notched wire coils would be both inexpensive and highly efficient against both light AFVs and troops in the open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ceiling[edit]

"The BMP-3 can pass 600 km. Ultimate height of operation 3,000 m." - I assume the former figure is its road range. I understand that diesel engines lose power at higher altitudes, but just under 10,000 feet seems low for an absolute ceiling, especially given that the vehicle is used by Venezuela. Is this the case? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bmp-3/specs.html
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bmp-3/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bmp-3/index.html
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on BMP-3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Please do not kill me if it is already mentioned ... BMP-2 vs BMP-3... ?[edit]

Hi,

I just did check the BMP-Series, and I found that the BMP-2 was produced from 1980 until "present", and the BMP-3 from 1987 until "present". Means it is a direct competitor?! The BMP-2 is more an option for poor countries or 2nd Hand ones while the BMP-3 is more expensive (larger, stronger engine, again a real gun and not "only" the 30mm Machine Cannon from the BMP-2 and only each 1 x 7.62mm Machine Guns, while the BMP-3 got 3 such guns, more horsepower, better armor.... but still it is no real anti-tank fighter against European, US or South Korean/Japanese Tanks...

The BMP-1 and BMP-2 had only some things changed (for example both had a 225 kW Diesel engine, same armor of max 33mmm rolled steel), BMP-2 had a 1.100 kg (1.1 tonnes) higher weight, but I think more efficient Diesel engine made up most of this extra weight. Just the experience that extra heavy guns (73mm) guns in BMP-1 were replaced by 30mm Auto Machine Gun as main weapon, both supported by a single 7.62 mm Soviet Caliber MG.

The BMP-3 on the other side is very different to BMP-1 and 2... not only the weight is increased a bit more stronger to 18.7 tonnes (from 13.2 tonnes in BMP-1) and the engine is a 375 kW (500 horsepower) Diesel engine this time. The main weapon is a 100 mm gun (back to the BMP-1 roots, high enough caliber to destroy even stronger armored targets, but very large ammu and therefore limited number of shells inside the BMP, which results in a 40 HE-Granades and 8 AT-10-Anti-Tank-Missiles is the Russian Army standard, supported by 3 x 7.62 mm Soviet Caliber support machine guns, so many possible works for the 3-men crew, the 3 MG's are I think because of their position, not easy movable but so the gunner can switch the firing sides easy without moving any weapon or so....

Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on BMP-3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on BMP-3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That Clutch Pedal!!! Holy Mother of Mary!![edit]

I can't believe that actual humans can operate the clutch on this thing. Russian tankers must look like that crab with that big claw.

Just kidding. But man!! That clutch!. Lol. Good on you if you can operate this!! 139.138.6.121 (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of SPS[edit]

The use of blogs and Self Published sources is restricted for inclusion unless there is a concenssus on the matter. I see only one user reverting the edits made by two other editors, (three including me) in the number of units lost during the current 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I don't need a source for my edits because. 1) Concenssus is needed for inclusion. 2) The source is a Self Published Source 3) It's a extraordinary claim made by a single person that run a blog. If the user want to consider the Oryxblog first he need to reach concenssus with the other editors involved, if not it changes wont be considered.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schierbecker:,@BilletsMauves:.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the user making the reverts(before your name change from Conservative Cheese Ball to Basesaurus), this is not the first time you did edit warring. On 17 April at the BMD-4 article, you were warned that further use of SPS will end in a block. Drmies warned you.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly,I havent edit warred in this instance, Secondly I was not warned about Using any SPS,I was warned not to Edit War which I have not in this instance so its irrelevant for you to bring this up. May I ask that you re-read the original comment made by Drmies. Basedosaurus (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BMP-3&oldid=1206345893"