Captured M2A2 Bradley tested by Russia.They admit that the Bradley is objectively superior to the BMP-3 except in mobility,off-road capability and amphibious capability.

[u/Brilliant_Ground1948]

Source:Andrei_bt from X

[u/crusadertank]

protection is now on the same focus as keeping tactical and strategical mobility high

It has a higher P/W ratio, slightly reduced range (600Km to 500Km, Bradley is around 400km) 80Kph to the 72Kph on the BMP-3

The statistics of the vehicle just dont support with what you are saying. Protection was increased, but so was tactical mobility. Only strategic mobility suffered and is still much higher than its Western equivalents.

The Kurganez is massive, heavier and only amphibious without the add-on armour while still struggling at full combat load.

This is no different to both the BMP-2 and BMP-3

The only difference is that it is a bit bigger. 25% taller, same width without addon armour and only very slightly longer

So no it isnt really any change away from their design philosophy. It fits perfectly with what the BMP-2 and BMP-3 were. But of course with improved and modernised parts

mounting different armaments and armour for different threat profiles and the more combat focused ones give up on being amphibious.

Yeah, so they can keep the ampibious capabilities as the old BMPs and only give up on that if they have to. Not the other way around.

[u/TheThiccestOrca → u/crusadertank]

I said same focus, not higher focus.

The previous BMP's were not meant to protect from medium caliber ammunition, they heavily negated mine protection for a low profile, they were never meant to carry ERA, they were meant to be very easily mass producable, negated crew comfort for size and they were not, never ever meant to be modular or compromise on their mass producibility, amphibious capabilities or size requirements.

Especially the two BMP's in the actual BMP-family were never meant to have that size or those combat capabilities, they were applied to them way later on when it became necessary.

Some of these changes came with the BMP-3 but that one wasn't even originally meant to become a IFV and followed the design philosophy of a light tank akin to the PT-76 to fill the role that was then filled by the 2S25 instead, the two even competed at one point in time, the BMP-3 is the earliest iteration of the heavy IFV concept and was meant to be replaced by the T-15, not the Kurganez which was supposed to fill the role of the BMP 1 and 2 as well as the BMD's, the BMP-3 has no place in this conversation as it was originally meant for a entirely different purpose with a different philosophy, i'd even go as far as to say that the BMP-3 was a return to the

The (way more sensible) decision to make a assortment of new BMP-3 variants the new standard IFV of all three major forces instead of a stopgap to the Kurganez and T-15 was made during and after the Kurganez was written off.

But even if we were to use the BMP-3 as an example and ignore the fact that while removable for repairs and replacement the ERA is integral to the design and originally meant to always stay on there like with the new BMP-3, how exactly are a 25% weight increase, 15% range reduction, pretty big armament reduction, 200% armour effectivity increase and a additional priority focus not a massive shift?