>need to be light so low armor
>more maintenance and complexity
>you still need bridges for all your other vehicles: tanks, artillery, supply trucks
>very slow in water, easy targets
When you look at Russians, their stupid BMPs seem more like a dead weight. No armor, shit equipment, being amphibious does nothing for them.
How much use are you going to get out of amphibious vehicles in a real war?
They get easily destroyed due to low armor. If the enemy prevents you from crossing rivers and building bridges, he will likely prevent you from using amphibious vehicles.
You normally can't cross a river because the enemy is too strong for you. So you cross the river with amphibious IFVs, and then the enemy destroys you, because that was the problem from the beginning.
Amphibious vehicles will be useful in some rare situations, but it seems stupid to make whole armies out of them.
Yeah this "muh amphibious" rule has crippled lots of soviet designs
A meme. Average "amphibious" vehicle requires full day of preparations and still has ~50% to sink
Very. The entire world will want amphibious AFVs once they see our performance taking Taipei.
> our
I got to watch a U.S. Marine exercise where they landed on a beach in their AAVs and they were so slow out in the water bobbing up and down that I was horrified of what would happen if there were ATGMs in the tropical rainforest around me. They looked so vulnerable and it seemed like it took forever that I was getting bored, and then they got close enough to deploy their smoke and then rolled onto the beach, and then very quickly raced past me to wherever their objective was further inland that was it. It felt like the knight running at the castle guard in the Holy Grail:
I dunno. I figure in a real war the beach would just be getting the bejesus bombed out of it. But part of it is also being able to move a lot faster once you're actually on land and exploit a breach more quickly than Tom Hanks could do.
So the Russian idea was to rush and overwhelm the enemy with big numbers. That falls apart when your tanks aren't amphibious and when your IFVs have no armor.
IDF had an amphibious armor unit called unit 88-White Bear
they used BTR-50 and PT76 vehicles for rapid amphibious assaults quickly crossing over bodies of water and encircling the enemy.
they were incredably sucessful in war
Ok, Moshe.
It makes sense if it's a specialized unit.
But Russians prepared for a war against NAFO, their BMP shit boxes wouldn't stand a chance.
When the BMP was being designed, "NAFO" didn't stand a chance against the Soviets.
now this is some grade A pinko zigger copium. West german campaign would have ended up exactly like ukraine today. Just with more meat and metal shredded in the process with a rebelling eastern block in their rear
They make a lot of sense in the context of 1970s/1980s European nuclear war. The idea was that the Soviet nuclear forces would destroy every HQ, barracks, staging point and known force concentration they could then give all of their forces the order to head west. In that case, an amphibious vehicle that can ford rivers with little preparation is invaluable. It's not like in that case you'd be facing much organized resistance.
Before you ask, yes the same would happen to the Soviet forces. This is why they had so many vehicles ready to go. One is eventually bound to get through and a small arms proof armored vehicle with a cannon is as good as a MBT if all you're facing is military police or confused national police.
Ignoring the stupid NAFO bullshit, the plan was to give all front line forces the order to head west, glass the fuck out of Western Germany and hope for the best. This isn't a conspiracy theory, soldiers assigned to NATO at that time talk about it as well.
>]
You cross rivers with BMPs, then what? Your tanks are behind, your supply lines are behind.
[...]
I'm sure BMPs still wouldn't be a problem in 1960s.
>Your tanks are behind, your supply lines are behind.
All of Eastern Europe has just been nuked, whatever supplies are available go through whatever supply units are left and make it to whatever units survived the initial atomic attack plus the offensive against NATO.
Equipment is shaped by the country that is developing it.
For Russians, BMPs and tanks being capable of crossing wide but shallow European rivers of the Eastern steppe is absolutely essential for them since all of their strategic goals revolved around rushing in or out of those regions.
For Americans, French, British and others, amphibious is not important.
It sounds like Russians didn't really think it through, as usual.
You cross rivers with BMPs, then what? Your tanks are behind, your supply lines are behind.
I'm sure BMPs still wouldn't be a problem in 1960s.
Mate, you aren't the smartest person alive, some people know more than you.
>You cross rivers with BMPs, then what? Your tanks are behind, your supply lines are behind.
The tanks had snorkelers and pressurised cabins, so after 30 minutes, the tanks could cross the river.
>I'm sure BMPs still wouldn't be a problem in 1960s
The difference between the European and American forces in Europe compared to Soviets was extreme, especially in the 60s.
>The tanks had snorkelers and pressurised cabins, so after 30 minutes, the tanks could cross the river.
you aren't the smartest person alive, there's a reason nobody actually does this, the tanks would usually get stuck or flooded
>30 minutes
it takes hours
>you aren't the smartest person alive, there's a reason nobody actually does this, the tanks would usually get stuck or flooded
>T-55 crews claimed snorkeling was very safe if the river bed was scouted
ok
>it takes hours
no
>>T-55 crews claimed snorkeling was very safe if the river bed was scouted
How long does it take to find the perfect spot the tank can cross?
Would the Russian army bother for hours/days to find the perfect spot to cross? No.
They would send the tanks through mine fields because it's faster, they would do the same for rivers.
>Russian
Soviet, dipshits.
also
>expecting Russian soldiers to properly seal the tank when in real combat
>their commanders giving them enough time
I guess the idea behind BMPs was sending meat waves quickly. They forgot this does not work against any semi competent force.
soviet doctrine relied on massed nuclear first strike and then sending infantry inside those tin boxes to limit exposure - infrastructure would be in ruins - and that would also include bridges - plus it makes more sense when you fight in Finland like terrain - in some parts of the world you have more lakes bogs and rivers than actual land
there are tons of rivers in central europe where the soviets expected to fight
The brass who set out the specs for the BMP knew that Russian/Soviet logistics were dogshit, and pontoons weren't going to be built at every crossing point needed, so amphibious IFVs, which would be responsible for moving large numbers of troops around the theatre of operations, were pretty important.
I get it, they built BMPs because of rivers. But would that change anything? BMPs are still dog shit. You can cross rivers, but you still have no armor, shit armament. You cross river, you get shot to pieces.