U.S. Army looks good with a BMP
(From Left) Staff Sgt. Kris Jorgensen and Spc. Jason Echevarria, both from Troop C, 2nd Squadron, 14th Cavalry Regiment Strykehorse, 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, from Schofield Barracks, Hawaii maneuver with Indian Soldiers and their Boyevaya Machina Pekhoty, or BMP tank, a soviet amphibious tracked infantry fighting vehicle, during Exercise Yudh Abyas 09
Emphasis added.
8 comments:
worst thing is that you are right...it just looks right...
Will the US Army and USMC go after something like this or an 60 ton monster ?Hope you are right Eric ...i hate to see an russian IFV with the US Army,but it is the right way to go...you said it well
The BMP will not solve the American infantry fighting vehicle quandary.
What the American military appear to want is an IFV which is easily air transportable, and which holds an entire nine-man squad at one time, plus the vehicle crew, and which will securely protect against everything from RPG7 all the way up to massive chained IEDs built from multiple 155mm artillery rounds. It has to be able to hold its own against a main battle tank. Oh, and it must be affordable. And it must be "green".
This vehicle does not exist and it never will. BMP certainly is not it. Yet the Pentagon are in an increasingly desperate and frenzied search for a vehicle which fills the bill.
Then again, this is the same Pentagon which has persisted beyond all rational persistence with the F-35.
One should not be in front of a vehicle, and not so close anyway. It's a poor photo op.
The MBP is protected only against AP mines and machinegun fire and not very spacious inside. It is thus totally unsatisfactory to Western military forces (except the Swedes).
And more tactically useful for Pacific operations than either the joke of the Stryker or Bradley.
Yes, equipping our foot soldiers to get them out of the 1920/30s as motorised infantry gets no mention and the discussion surrounding the BMP is quite appropriate. Especially so since our wheeled truck becomes an expensive brick in any tropical wet season or across beaches.
Perhaps the US (and even Oz) should have a look at the IDF Namer?
Lots aspirational and unfunded push button whizbangery for the RAN and RAAF in this paper, but the basics for those that must "seize and hold ground, regardless of season weather or terrain" sadly appears not to be any part of the brief?
SO ,it is a photo shoot dear.
"Perhaps the US (and even Oz) should have a look at the IDF Namer?"
Namer is amazingly protective and capacious.
It's a massive headache when it comes to air transportability. Apparently it's a potential bridge headache too.
I don't know if Namer can swim or not. Can Merkava? (From the hull of which the Namer is derived.) IDF have not really had to worry about such things in their home area of operations. Expeditionary armies in Asia will have to worry.
And the M1? The soldiers of the IDF are its greatest asset, and it's quality of armour simply reflects it's British based priority of protection over firepower & mobility. The crews feel this in their bones. They well know the psychology of soldiering...
Post a Comment