Nag anti-tank Missile

[abingdonboy]

Going to post some of the shortcomings of the BMP:

BMP is cramped (to include no real ability to carry sustained combat loads of ammunition, equipment, etc.) and tends to kill everyone on board when it is hit. BMP unlikely to even survive a RPG.


----

The BMP fit the Red Aarmys concept of mechanized combat in the 1960s, which was & is vastly different from the US Armys idea then & now. Even a modern BMP would not fit what I undertand to be the US Armys tactics and operational doctrine. If I were training a mechanized brigade for some African or other low speed army to beat up another similar mob then the BMP might be my first choice.

-----

Correct. From the viewpoint of the procurement accountants in a defense ministry, the BMP is a superior purchase becoz it is cheaper and available in huge numbers. From the viewpoint of the men who have to bounce along in the vehicles and possibly take hits, the Bradley is the default choice becoz of superior survivability!!

----

Fiscal accounting is just part of my choice. The simpler short term operating requirements, faster training for less educated soldiers, are there. I also suspect the BMP supports simpler tactics. the Bradleys extra capability would confuse too many of the crew.


-----
The BMP1, admittedly, is a horrible IFV and vulnerable to HMG fire. The BMP2 has a better gun and turret but the hull is the same. Applique armour can make it proof against HMG fire and generally more survivable. It's still pretty cramped inside.

-----

Myself, I'd better walk than ride in any of those cans,


----

none of these vehicles ever saw Israeli service, perhaps because of the very low survival rate of the Syrian BMP-1 crews when hit with anything that could penetrate it's thin armor.

-----

Can a 40mm grenade (HEDP) from an M203 or AG36 pierce the armour of a BMP-1 or BMP-2? << Yes.

----

I would think the mountains of guys who've burned to death in BMPs along the way would attest to the inferiority of their vehicle

----

BMP seating and stowage for dismounts' equipment has always been notably lacking, with units conducting any sort of sustained operations usually having to dump one, two, or three of their dismounts to carry basic supplies and equipment for the crew and infantry.

----

I'd rather ride in the back of a Bradley than the back of a BMP3, assuming that I would even fit in a BMP3. The BMP3 is a mish-mash of light tank, IFV and recce vehicle. Consequently, I rather suspect that it does none of its intended roles particularly well.


----

2 points on the 40mm. I dont know how accurate #1 is, but.... I think in grenada, at least 1 or 2 bmp-1 were taken out by m-203s-dont know the range.... #2-about the accuracy; I have seen a few clips of soldiers being deadly accurate-while under fire with their 203-one taking out a sniper-what...350 yds away or so, and another hitting a door of a walled compound from what seemed like 150 to 200 yrs. Granted, not moving, but for the one under fire.... If a apc is generally only protected from 7.62, I would def. say that a m-203 would make it toast, and even if it protected from up to 12.7/14/5mm... now with reactive armour/modular, etc, I think taking out the track or the engine compartment would be the trick and do-able

-----


40mm HEDP will easily penetrate a BMP-1 or -2.


----


https://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/2-15735-page1.aspx#startofcomments
(Much of the discussion in this link is about the BMP-3, I've picked out what I cant for the BMP-1/2- which is inferior even to the BMP-3 which there is mixed opnion about)


-----

well BMP2 still has those large gas tanks on the back, would be good targets to knock them out.

-----

The BMP is a rolling deathtrap. A .50 SLAP round will poke holes through it like butter (even with the "ceramic" add on stuff installed). The main gun is a PITA to reload (I've had a crew reload the AP ready box in a Brad on the move in under two minutes). Their night sights suck past 800 meters as well. I'm not too fond of their gun either. the 2A42 is gas operated and a bear to pull maintenance on.


-----



the russians found out very quickly the bmp sucks.... especially when the fuel tanks are in the rear troop doors. pretty much anything armor piercing will take them out from the ass end.




http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1224460_M2_Bradley_Vs__The_BMP_Series.html&page=2

------

I like how you us the BMP-2 as an example of the effectiveness of Russian weapons. It was a deathtrap, designed in such a way that even the oldest of anti-tank weapons would easily destroy it and kill everyone inside(Due to the insane seating configuration).

The rear doors are the fuel tanks...if you get hit, all the infantry in the back cook


-----

The Chechnya conflict was particularly bad for that vehicle. Fueled with kerosene (T-80s burn it, and the BMP is multi-fuel), and ignoring the doctrine to clear the doors, the BMP was not a happy place under hostile fire. I don't know what the doctrine was in Iraq, but I would not be surprised if they kept the doors fueled, given the overall poor performance of that army in '03.


------

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73432

 

[garg_bharat]

There are technical solutions which can be applied, and rest is solved with strategy.

1. Do not fill rear door with fuel. The doors can be replaced with a door that has ballistic carpet instead.
2. Floor can be strengthened and more underbody protection can be applied.
3. Side and top production can be improved and has been improved.
4. It is cramped - yes - but it will be used for short durations in the Indian war conditions. Soldiers are not going to live in it. All kinds of vehicles have become risky in current war. The strategy has to change accordingly.

 

[abingdonboy]

There are technical solutions which can be applied, and rest is solved with strategy.

1. Do not fill rear door with fuel. The doors can be replaced with a door that has ballistic carpet instead.
2. Floor can be strengthened and more underbody protection can be applied.
3. Side and top production can be improved and has been improved.
4. It is cramped - yes - but it will be used for short durations in the Indian war conditions. Soldiers are not going to live in it. All kinds of vehicles have become risky in current war. The strategy has to change accordingly.

Why optimise a flawed t*rd? By this logic the BMP will be serving in 2060 if you keep adapting tactics and applying new technical solutions to it?

 

[garg_bharat]

The fault is with the army, as NOTHING satisfies army. Army procurements are EXTREMELY SLOW.

 

[garg_bharat]

Eventually war will come and Army will be the MOST UNPREPARED force.

You have to change the mindset that everything has to be imported. India must equip its army with local production.

Army needs to learn to live with what can be done locally. Everybody else does the same.

 

[abingdonboy]

Eventually war will come and Army will be the MOST UNPREPARED force.

You have to change the mindset that everything has to be imported. India must equip its army with local production.

Army needs to learn to live with what can be done locally. Everybody else does the same.

Utter nonsense. If all the forces went 100% indigenious the quality of what they were forced to fight with would be pathetic in many areas. Indigenise where possible and have this as the eventual goal but do not allow that objective to compromise the fighting capabilties of the forces. Why tie one hand behind the military? They should be getting the very best to fight with, regardless of where it comes from. It's easy to sit on here and prescribe this but you aren't the one who will have to fight in a LCA against a PLAAF Su-35 are you?

Imports will always be needed- even the US imports military equipment (so does China).

 

[garg_bharat]

As you are waving the British flag, it is easy to see where you are coming from.

Nobody prescribes. So far it is only a gentle nudge. But surely it may become more forceful. The government ultimately has to act in the interest of the country.

 

[kr9]

Utter nonsense. If all the forces went 100% indigenious the quality of what they were forced to fight with would be pathetic in many areas. Indigenise where possible and have this as the eventual goal but do not allow that objective to compromise the fighting capabilties of the forces. Why tie one hand behind the military? They should be getting the very best to fight with, regardless of where it comes from. It's easy to sit on here and prescribe this but you aren't the one who will have to fight in a LCA against a PLAAF Su-35 are you?

Imports will always be needed- even the US imports military equipment (so does China).

A small correction , sir; as I understand, the US imports full ToT and then manufactures it in US through local sources or gets the parent company to start a facility in US and make it for them. It is not the same handicap as importing ready arms. So they can still make the arms without consent from the parent company if it really comes to that.

Now, we also have 'Make in India'. So we are streamlining our processes. But it takes time. And it requires progression through the technological stages. So even though we are focusing on LCA and other stuff, look at them as lessons that will power future technologies and the generations who can learn that technology in India from our own universities (and need not go to other countries for their technology and education and then try to adapt it).

And the quality, reliability and superiority of completely indigenous technology is only in question until someone actually perfects it.

 

[Anupu]

A Lot better design, Arjun is not amphibious and Kestral is not tracked, FICV is far away ..

The system is being modified to adapt BMP chassis ' specifically ' ..

I remember I saw a tracked version of krestel. Edit: Couldn't find it, guess I must have got confused.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

'IMO' indeed, Army on other hand see mobility and that`s the only reason it sticking to BMP1/2 till date, Less Armour for better mobility is Army`s preference ..

I have been in BMP-2, Ride in it too for some time and i don`t like it not because its uncomfortable but it leaves a huge thermal signature and its exhaust is right upwards smoking, ..

======================

3 Million Army cannot effort to run on imports, Imported design are also not suited to our conditions always, Make in India is a good way to make lisenced clone but they have their own drawbacks in design ..

=====================

Don`t use words which are not needed such as ' Tard ' or anything similar, It raise unprovoked reactions ..

The "amphibious" requirement is rather pointless IMO because the NAMICA is meant to go with the armoured columns is it not? And they are made up of T-90/Arjun MBTs which aren't amphibious either so NAMICAs are hardly going to go alone, they will stick with the rest of the armoured columns. Addtionally, I've never bought the need for ampibious vehicle for the IA (aside from the specifc amphibious brigade meant to operate from IN landing vessels).

The logic, we are told, is that they will be used to cross rivers in Pakistani Punjab, has this ever seemed like a sensible idea to anyone? As I have said, the MBTs are not amphibious so are the IFVs going to go ahead of the MBTs in direct contradiction of all established blitzkreig tactics? And not only that but do you know how slowly those BMPs would be when crossing a water body? Painfully slowly. All whilst being an easy target for the enemy.

All that you need to negate this is to have BTTs as part of the IBGs (which is what I understand is the point of the IBG- to be a fully self contained fighting force).

Alas, I don't buy that this system can't be put onto another platform, it simply doesn't make sense to have designed it only to be able to fit onto a BMP, if it can fit on there it can fit on almost anything. The system will be modular and it won't be difficult to mate it to a new, more powerful and protected, chassis.

It doesn't matter if the new chassis would be heavier than the BMP (almost anything these days would be) as the NAMICA only needs to be able to keep up with the slowest/heaviest MBT- that is the entire logic behind the IBGs and CSD. There is no point in looking at this system/vehicle in isolation but have to understand how it fits operationally into the IA. It will never be operating independantly.

Everyone knows the BMP suffers from survivability issues- it is incredibly thin skinned and ill-suited for modern warefare. The only saving grace is that Pakistan is a rather weak enemy but give them another 10 years and the BMP will be inferior by their standards. This is a >40 year old design, of course it is not going to be as good as its contemporaries.

Against any other enemy the BMPs would be liabilites today, they are death traps.

I'm not saying don't induct it as is. Do but when better options present themselves transfer the turrets over to them.

Going to post some of the shortcomings of the BMP:
BMP is cramped (to include no real ability to carry sustained combat loads of ammunition, equipment, etc.) and tends to kill everyone on board when it is hit. BMP unlikely to even survive a RPG.
---
The BMP fit the Red Aarmys concept of mechanized combat in the 1960s, which was & is vastly different from the US Armys idea then & now. Even a modern BMP would not fit what I undertand to be the US Armys tactics and operational doctrine. If I were training a mechanized brigade for some African or other low speed army to beat up another similar mob then the BMP might be my first choice.
-----
Correct. From the viewpoint of the procurement accountants in a defense ministry, the BMP is a superior purchase becoz it is cheaper and available in huge numbers. From the viewpoint of the men who have to bounce along in the vehicles and possibly take hits, the Bradley is the default choice becoz of superior survivability!!
----
Fiscal accounting is just part of my choice. The simpler short term operating requirements, faster training for less educated soldiers, are there. I also suspect the BMP supports simpler tactics. the Bradleys extra capability would confuse too many of the crew.
-----
The BMP1, admittedly, is a horrible IFV and vulnerable to HMG fire. The BMP2 has a better gun and turret but the hull is the same. Applique armour can make it proof against HMG fire and generally more survivable. It's still pretty cramped inside.
-----
Myself, I'd better walk than ride in any of those cans,
----
none of these vehicles ever saw Israeli service, perhaps because of the very low survival rate of the Syrian BMP-1 crews when hit with anything that could penetrate it's thin armor.
-----
Can a 40mm grenade (HEDP) from an M203 or AG36 pierce the armour of a BMP-1 or BMP-2? << Yes.
----
I would think the mountains of guys who've burned to death in BMPs along the way would attest to the inferiority of their vehicle
----
BMP seating and stowage for dismounts' equipment has always been notably lacking, with units conducting any sort of sustained operations usually having to dump one, two, or three of their dismounts to carry basic supplies and equipment for the crew and infantry.
----
I'd rather ride in the back of a Bradley than the back of a BMP3, assuming that I would even fit in a BMP3. The BMP3 is a mish-mash of light tank, IFV and recce vehicle. Consequently, I rather suspect that it does none of its intended roles particularly well.
----
2 points on the 40mm. I dont know how accurate #1 is, but.... I think in grenada, at least 1 or 2 bmp-1 were taken out by m-203s-dont know the range.... #2-about the accuracy; I have seen a few clips of soldiers being deadly accurate-while under fire with their 203-one taking out a sniper-what...350 yds away or so, and another hitting a door of a walled compound from what seemed like 150 to 200 yrs. Granted, not moving, but for the one under fire.... If a apc is generally only protected from 7.62, I would def. say that a m-203 would make it toast, and even if it protected from up to 12.7/14/5mm... now with reactive armour/modular, etc, I think taking out the track or the engine compartment would be the trick and do-able
-----
40mm HEDP will easily penetrate a BMP-1 or -2.
----
https://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/2-15735-page1.aspx#startofcomments
(Much of the discussion in this link is about the BMP-3, I've picked out what I cant for the BMP-1/2- which is inferior even to the BMP-3 which there is mixed opnion about)
-----
well BMP2 still has those large gas tanks on the back, would be good targets to knock them out.
-----
The BMP is a rolling deathtrap. A .50 SLAP round will poke holes through it like butter (even with the "ceramic" add on stuff installed). The main gun is a PITA to reload (I've had a crew reload the AP ready box in a Brad on the move in under two minutes). Their night sights suck past 800 meters as well. I'm not too fond of their gun either. the 2A42 is gas operated and a bear to pull maintenance on.
-----
the russians found out very quickly the bmp sucks.... especially when the fuel tanks are in the rear troop doors. pretty much anything armor piercing will take them out from the ass end.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1224460_M2_Bradley_Vs__The_BMP_Series.html&page=2
------
I like how you us the BMP-2 as an example of the effectiveness of Russian weapons. It was a deathtrap, designed in such a way that even the oldest of anti-tank weapons would easily destroy it and kill everyone inside(Due to the insane seating configuration).

The rear doors are the fuel tanks...if you get hit, all the infantry in the back cook
-----
The Chechnya conflict was particularly bad for that vehicle. Fueled with kerosene (T-80s burn it, and the BMP is multi-fuel), and ignoring the doctrine to clear the doors, the BMP was not a happy place under hostile fire. I don't know what the doctrine was in Iraq, but I would not be surprised if they kept the doors fueled, given the overall poor performance of that army in '03.
------
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73432

Utter nonsense. If all the forces went 100% indigenious the quality of what they were forced to fight with would be pathetic in many areas. Imports will always be needed- even the US imports military equipment (so does China).

Why optimise a flawed t*rd? By this logic the BMP will be serving in 2060 if you keep adapting tactics and applying new technical solutions to it?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

You saw stryker variant in both wheeled and tracked, Not Krestel ..

I remember I saw a tracked version of krestel. Edit: Couldn't find it, guess I must have got confused.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The Vehicle is based on BMP-2, Its used by Indian Army as command and control vehicle, Its solve most issues of BMP-2 design flaws, But not used as basic APC or weapon platform because Army wanted to stick with old Russian design ..

There are technical solutions which can be applied, and rest is solved with strategy.

1. Do not fill rear door with fuel. The doors can be replaced with a door that has ballistic carpet instead.
2. Floor can be strengthened and more underbody protection can be applied.
3. Side and top production can be improved and has been improved.
4. It is cramped - yes - but it will be used for short durations in the Indian war conditions. Soldiers are not going to live in it. All kinds of vehicles have become risky in current war. The strategy has to change accordingly.

 

[tharun]

What is the speed of nag missile?

 

[HariPrasad-1]

What is the speed of nag missile?

300 m/s. ..............................

 

[tharun]

300 m/s. ..............................

How about speed of javelin and spike respectively............

 

[HariPrasad-1]

How about speed of javelin and spike respectively............

Do not know but may be little faster.

 

[Superdefender]

Javeline flies like a ballistic missile where as NAG flies like cruise missile. If any of you have ever played COD4: Modern warfare, you have been faced a night mission where American troops engaging hostile local attackers. At the end of that mission, your squad captain orders you to get hold of Javelin ATGM lying on the ground and takeout three incoming tanks coming from the bridge. After locked on and fired, javelin releases, then goes straight upwards a long way, positions itself right on top of tank, then comes down in a str. way to destroy the tank much like the path of ICBM. There are later other day missions too of Javelin. Where as NAG, after fired from NAMICA, flies like a normal missile and blasts right on top of tank, which is its weak position.

 

[guru-dutt]

Javeline flies like a ballistic missile where as NAG flies like cruise missile. If any of you have ever played COD4: Modern warfare, you have been faced a night mission where American troops engaging hostile local attackers. At the end of that mission, your squad captain orders you to get hold of Javelin ATGM lying on the ground and takeout three incoming tanks coming from the bridge. After locked on and fired, javelin releases, then goes straight upwards a long way, positions itself right on top of tank, then comes down in a str. way to destroy the tank much like the path of ICBM. There are later other day missions too of Javelin. Where as NAG, after fired from NAMICA, flies like a normal missile and blasts right on top of tank, which is its weak position.

so that explains why US missile is more deadly even after bieng so light .. thanks i thing we should also make a top attack MANPAD type NAG

 

[Superdefender]

so that explains why US missile is more deadly even after bieng so light .. thanks i thing we should also make a top attack MANPAD type NAG

But Namica carries salvos of NAG;do not forget that. ManPad and carrier - both have different advantage. We bought Spike ATGMs

 

[guru-dutt]

But Namica carries salvos of NAG;do not forget that. ManPad and carrier - both have different advantage. We bought Spike ATGMs

we need to save money too yes having spike is good but we need to have a mass produced man portable ATGM or maybe something that can also be used for anty aircraft roles which is the current trend roud the world most of the armies in order to cut flab are going for this new kind of multi purpose missile which could be used by a team of two either for anty tank or anty aircraft swing roles and yes chinese already developing a couple of these