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-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.

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.