Why the Russian Army BMP Vehicle is Worse than You Think

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (53,379 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

The BMP armored infantry fighting vehicle seems to have some performance issues on the battlefield that we to talk about.

Written by Chris Cappy and Justin Taylor

Business Inquires: jason.lepore@recurrent.io

inquiries: capelluto@taskandpurpose.com



  1. Why do these Russian vehicles always carry a log of wood in the back of them? I just watched a video of Mariopol and the log of wood is there. What is the function of this?

  2. owl lego stop motion

    Coax is not antiquated every single new tank adds it. it is a highly usefull feature to have.

  3. 8:42 russians test their military weapons on civil targets, bcz it’s against what it will be used mostly

  4. Because its a piece of crap. Thin armour and unreliable. Death traps.

  5. nice propaganda

  6. The best way russians use BMPs in Ukraine is that they kill civilians in their cars and bicycles :/ This is deplorable fact.

  7. When I called the BMP a “tank” in the title I was trying to reach a larger civilian audience instead of calling it the by the book correct term which is an “infantry fighting vehicle” most civilians don’t know about what an “IFV” is. I was in a mechanized infantry unit so I understand the fine level of detail there. I was in a Stryker vehicle which technically we can go one step deeper there and say the Stryker isn’t an IFV, it’s an Infantry Carrier Vehicle. I rethought the title and decided the criticism is valid, it doesn’t work so I changed it, thanks for your feedback on that everyone!

    • The more clicks you get the better. your channel is great. My comment was mostly for people who already came here as a clarification, not to diss you. Creating high quality video content like yours takes a lot of time and dedication. All the best.

    • Everything getting called a tank in the Ukraine, good decision to change these vids educate us not follow the masses. Not sure on gyro stabilisation for BMP3 turret weaponry, any clips showing it so claim of accurate on the move can be substantiated? Cheers

    • Good change.
      Having classed as a tank really changes a viewer’s expectations from the video.
      I watched it with the “tank” title, and I must say it confused me at first what you were going for.

    • ElevationSickness

      As a civilian trying to educate myself I appreciate the fine detail. I will still refer to armored vehicles with a turret looking thing as a tank but now I understand that I am incorrect

    • Vladimir Makarov

      Make video on bmpt terminator

  8. I would like to suggest that the German Sdkfz 251 was the first armored personnel carrier. It was specifically designed to take an entire squad into battle alongside tanks at the same speed and through the same terrain a tank could go trough. It also was able to support the dismounted squad to a degree with one or 2 machine guns. But its main purpose was to provide infantry protection for the tanks.
    The BMP series appear to be some type of tank themselves, or at least a mini tank, which is really a whole new weapon system. It appears that a number of BMP’s with infantry alone could take a town even without tank presence. That would put the BMP or any similar vehicle into a much different battle philosophy then armored personnel carrier.
    Regardless, using whatever you happen to have in a way that overpowers the enemy will win battles or wars.

  9. First armoured personnel carrier… hello the universal carrier.

  10. Scandinavian countries use CV90 instead of BMP. Would be nice with a video about it:) Swedes tend to have unique solutions to problems. Even Usa is considering getting it.

  11. And the Ukraine is now getting BMP 1s ……….. armoured transport, but that’s basically it.

  12. Are we going to get an amusing comedy movie about the development of the BMP?

  13. Maybe Joe could take a joyride in the vehicle and give us a personal report.

  14. Many pictures coming out of Ukraine show destroyed BMPs that are burnt down to nothing but the drive train. Why does all the armor burn away? Is the BMP made out of aluminum?

  15. Thats propaganda?

  16. They are all right as long as that pesky caterpillar track stays on! One little rocket or grenade seems to pop them off rather quickly

  17. It had its day though

  18. The BMP/BMD/BTR’s are burning down to nothing. Of course aluminum can catch fire but burning down to the frame and wheels is bizarre.
    You should change the title to BMP/BMD because both are featured.

  19. Retro Entertainemnt

    Cappy supports genocide.

  20. The BMP-1 is a Soviet amphibious tracked infantry fighting vehicle. BMP stands for Boyevaya Mashina Pekhoty, meaning “fighting vehicle of infantry”. (wikipedia) ie IFV

  21. Michelle Arrington

    Most of russias weapons are weapons of desperation, their rocket powered torpedo is a perfect example. You know, the type that sunk the Kursk. Hell, these people can’t even build a safe airliner. I think that if poo poo would have implemented an anti-alcohol campaign around 30 years ago they might have had a chance of winning this invasion.

  22. feel like the first armored personel carrier was the halftrack

  23. Why would Russia not send their BMP3s, have you looked at visually confirmed kills on the oryx blog? They were sending in Spetsnaz and VDV, as well as their most modern tanks being over represented, so why would they send in old IFVs while using their most elite equipment everywhere else?

  24. SelfLoadingRifle

    As a former infantryman, what has always freaked me out about the BMP is the pair of fuel tank rear doors. If one of those takes a hit and ignites, it’s ENDEX for every poor sod inside, and in the most painful way imaginable.

  25. Steve Stolarczyk

    11:00– “Able to shoot with the same level of accuracy…” could absolutely be true if, by it, they mean a very poor level of accuracy.

  26. i see it now. i get it. when russian trolls saying “we’re not sending the best equipment” they literally mean it.

  27. Dude. That shit is a death trap.

  28. In WW2 the British and Germans both had APCs

  29. I’m an old school Infantryman from the 80s, and I get a hell of a lot of laughs from you my fellow Infantryman…good job! Fortunately I never had to actually fight against the Russians when I was stationed in West Germany, yes it was East and West back then. I’m very glad we didn’t have to use our Infantry vehicles, because we had the M113 APC, or as we like to call it, “a coffin on treads”. I don’t think the thin aluminum would have done much…we could shoot through it with and M60 with AP rounds!

    Thanks again for your channel. I’ll be watching more. Don’t worry this old Corporal will be keeping and eye on things and I’ll only drop you when you need to have your attitude checked. Hooah!

  30. It seems the Ukraine war shows us that a the Russian chain is only as stong as it’s weakest link(s). If troop training, combat logistics or tactics aren’t any good, then the technical aspects of their weapons and vehicles are irrelevant.

  31. Vladimir Boulatnikov

    Can you please call me, because you are mispronouncing all the Ukrainian city names. You are very funny and your videos are great, but, mispronouncing the names takes away from you credibility.

  32. 6:45 These light APC’s are designed to survive only small-arms fire, anything above 7.62 can penetrate the side and rear armour of BMP-2. Even RPG-7 to the hull is a death sentence for BMP-2, let alone fucking Javelin or NLAW. After all, those missiles can take out even Abrams or any other MBT that exists today.
    BMP-2 weighs only 14 tonnes, you can’t realisticly expect it to take much beating. They are not main battle tanks. BMP-2 is not a bad vehicle, it was designed to transport troops while providing some protection and good firepower. It does that job well, but nothing more.
    Also the incompetence of Russian troops is causing many casualties. It’s not the vehicles fault if the operator doesn’t know how to use it.

  33. Yeah you might wanna NMS (not mind safe) tag this or say something before showing footage of shit getting blown up, dude, even if you don’t see body parts flying.

  34. I prefer PNGs and JPEGs to BMPs.

  35. What a lot of hogwash! Ha, ha! Ukraine is going to loose this war. Either by waving a white flag – or have their whole country pulverized. The more the war drags on the more dangerous it get for the NATO countries. They have made them into nuke targets by supporting the fascist regime in Ukraine with weapons.

  36. Anyone seen the movie Pentagon Wars?

  37. Shooting out of potholes was developed in Dad’s Army.

  38. No experience but it seems to me that the doors at the back are easily pierced by 30mm cannon and any tracked vehicle is disable by a hit in the tracks.
    Blowing a tank to bits is spectcular but disabling one seems nearly as useful.

  39. Biden Sniffs Kids

    The bmp will not reach its final form till it has a coax flame thrower

  40. I love how Russian gunners train in shooting civilian cars

  41. Anti-armour weapons have evolved so much over the last couple decades that these BMP is like popcorn packs for microwave. They pretty much make sure that a single shot from an RPG or modern ATM kills quite a few serviceman with zero chances for survival. After all Soviet/Russian armour was never really meant to ensure crew survival. It’s cheap in mass production and supposedly easy on maintenance. All BMP generations do not offer any meaningful protection against ATMs. The war in Ukraine is fought in a WW2 way while it’s almost the end of the first quarter of 21st century. The sheer scale of destruction Ukrainian forces deliver to Russian armour proves that Russian army utilises hopelessly outdated equipment and tactics and is paying hefty price for that. In short – BMP is junk and just a “box” as Russians referring it themselves and sometimes called a “grave for 3” similar to Russian tanks.

  42. Someone FromAbroad

    Weapon systems designed in the 1960s and 1970s for a soviet concept of war against NATO will only really work in that context. You can stick new guns and new sights on there, but that wont change the fact that youre driving a largely straight-walled sheet metal box with no add-on armor (from photo evidence of non-MBT vehicles) into an environment that has way more and way better man-portable anti-tank firepower than back in the old days. Plus even the Russia of today cant wage war like the Soviets planned to do, with all vehicles (and men) being expendable after firing just a few rounds and hopefully causing so-and-so-many enemy casualties. They still use the designs, but they dont have the mind-boggling numbers anymore. Add to that mediocre to poor maintenance in peacetime and a neglected logistics sector, and your planned “western”-style mobile combined arms warfare breaks down after a few days.

  43. Meanwhile Poland which still uses glorious BMP1. Zmech for ever!

  44. It’s hard to gauge from what we’re seeing or rather, NOT seeing from the Ukraine conflict. Bad tactics, bad usage and possibly bad training doesn’t mean bad equipment. Sure, we can see images and even footage of these vehicles being destroyed along with ALL types of Russian armor but is this hardly surprising from even the limited amounts of footage we’re getting through the media and of course, that media is only going to show us all the moments where the Russians are being destroyed and not where the Russians successfully took towns and cleared buildings of Ukrainian military etc which they undoubtedly did do at some point in this conflict.

    But what we have seen in the Ukrainian conflict, regardless of any media stations agenda, is footage where there’s been large columns of Russian armor plodding slowly down skinny roads flanked either side by buildings and woodlands etc and rather unsurprisingly, they got attacked and some vehicles were hit and some were destroyed by Ukrainian forces waiting in their perfect ambush locations equipped with very advanced and also very expensive anti-armor equipment. So when you fill a country with lots of tightly packed armored vehicles and send them slowly down suicidal ambush areas flanked by a trained army equipped with lots of very advanced anti-armor equipment, ya, I’d be more surprised if there wasn’t lots of dead armored vehicles, it’s inevitable.

    That said, personally I doubt this BMP is bad and I would be inclined to think it’s pretty good for the role it’s supposed to serve. It’s primarily a troop carrier and undoubtedly it offers a lot more protection and even pretty good levels of offensive capability compared to sitting troops in the back of a tall open ended truck with a canvas roof. The BMP appears very mobile, is a tracked vehicle so can go places where the old traditional troop truck with wheels can’t go, it’s very sleek and low profile so it’s harder to spot and harder to hit, it has enough armor to protect against light arms fire, shrapnel, fire etc plus it also has a turret featuring some pretty decent firepower for some limited amounts of offensive duties which doubles as defensive weapons too, so a good support unit with obvious limitations. So overall there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot wrong with it at a glance. It’s not a MBT obviously, which we also see being destroyed so if the MBT can’t withstand a direct hit from the likes of a Javelin then I’d hardly criticize the BMP for not taking the hit, nor any other armored unit from around the globe. It seems to be pretty decent for the job it’s meant to fill.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *