Talk:BMP-1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Soviet Union (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / Technology & engineering / Military (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
 
WikiProject Western Asia / Kuwait (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Kuwait (marked as Low-importance).
 

BMP-1[edit]

Deployment

    • "BMP-1 infantry fighting vechiles(sic, gotta fix that) are used by the armoured jaeger companies and BMP-2s are used by armoured recon and armoured anti-tank companies. New Swedish Combat Vehicle 90s and Finnish Patria AMV 8x8s have been ordered for the Readiness brigades." Says the article Finnish_Army.
      --194.111.49.254 09:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • BMP-1 (designated as Pbv 501) is in use by Swedish_Army.
      --194.111.49.254 09:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Operators[edit]

The list is badly incomplete and inaccurate too, first it says that most of the vehicles in afganistan were supposedly captured from soviets, well this is not true, but the vehicles were those used by the legimate army of afgan goverment delivered them by USSR.

Also Finland is not listed as "operator", even when the vehicle showing its door mounted fuel tanks in the "Protection issues" section is FDF vehicle in Finnish camo and bearing the "PS" (armor) registration serial which can be clearly seen in the picture also the finnish vehicles were first delivered at around 1983 from USSR it self with another patch following and them suplemented by the DDR surplus and there was in the end 2 brigades, a division worth of T-72, BMP 1 and 2 in equal numbers, around 110-150 of each of these.

Yes, the majority of Afgnan BMP-1 IFvs were delivered from USSR as support for Afghan legitimate army. But Afghan mujahideen could repair some Soviet IFVs which were damaged and abandoned during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and used them also. As for Finland - AFAIK the first Soviet BMP-1 IFVs were delivered in June 1981 and the second Soviet delivery which consisted of BMP-1 and BMP-1K IFVs took place in summer 1982. A total of 85 BMP-1 and BMP-1K IFVs was delivered by the USSR. The third batch which consisted of 110 different variants of BMP-1/BMP-1P was delivered in 1990 by Germany from ex-East German stocks (all were modernized in 1994-1997 by Patria Vammas Oy). There were around 40 BMP-1 (+ native produced BMP-1TJ "Tuya" artillery reconnaissance vehicles) in service with the Finnish Army in 1995 and 1996. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection issues[edit]

Shouldn't the door-mounted fuel-tanks be mentioned under "protection issues". I believe at least some analysts have considered this an important flaw. Now it is only mentioned in the image text. -Sensemaker

The additional fuel tanks located inside rear doors (the main fuel tank is located inside the vehicle in troop compartment) for sure should be mentioned in "Protection issues" subsection. But we should remember that Soviet army instructions highly recommended to fill the door fuel tanks with sand instead of fuel before entry into combat (because door fuel tanks are used to increase the operational range of BMP-1 on the march, only the main fuel tank should be used in combat). And door fuel tanks filled with sand increased the resistance of BMP-1's armoured doors to 12.7 mm armour-piercing bullets. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like that would lead to a hell of a cleanup job if you ever wanted to use those fuel tanks again. Source for this? DMorpheus (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Those "issues" and others were discussed here, by people with 1st hand experience:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=132972& —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.196.3 (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In need of an expert[edit]

An opinionated evaluation is not what we need for this article, rather it could use a healthy dose of CONTEXT in regards to the design. I'm not sure exactly what that would entail, but I know commenting on how poorly the BMP-1 would fare against modern vehicles is not helpful. 65.37.28.154 04:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that present-day version of the article describes advantages and disadvantages of BMP-1 IFV very good and correct. As for commenting about only "poorness" of BMP-1 against modern vehicles - these are not objective professional opinions for sure. We should remember that BMP-1 was the first world's mass-produced IFV which was designed to be used together with main battle tanks during the possible nuclear war on European theatre of operation, its amphibious ability and requirements to protect troopers/crew members from small arms and 23mm shells (from the front arc) caused the decrease of armour thickness by designers. Its following use in many conflicts on mountain terrains in hot climat against enemy infantry armed with light anti-tank weapons and without necessary tank support during the city combats caused relatively high combat and technical losses, of course (also taking of consideration that non-modernized early models of BMP-1 which has more than 40-years history are still in wide use). As for its armament - 73mm smoothbore gun despite of some serious disadvantages to be used against light targets (infantry, firing points) could destroy or heavily damage every enemy main battle tank of that time, even modern MBTs could be destroyed by BMP-1 in the case of side hit (but this is hard for "oldie" at the moment, of course, as it should reach the target before it was detected by enemy MBT crew). And BMP-1 had ATGM launcher in addition. Other important thing - that BMP-1 IFVs had a very large potential for deep modernization and a lot of variants with reactive armour/new ATGMs/powerful small-caliber autocannons in weapon stations instead of turret are widely developed even now. And computer modelling shows that some of such BMP-1 modern variants have much higher combat value than US M2/M3 Bradley IFV, for example (and they are much cheaper than modern IFVs). The short sum will be the following: basic models of BMP-1 produced in 1966-1983 became an obsolete IFV for modern combats because of ineffective against light targets weapon, weak armour protection and minimal comfort for the troopers/crew members, but these vehicles can be used successfully as patrol or training vehicles, for example. Modern deep modernizations of BMP-1 have a good potential to be used as successful IFVs for a relatively long time. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Variants[edit]

I updated the list of variants and broke the list up country by country. -- dendirrek (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't see ANY connection between the BMP-1 and the Yugoslav BVP M-80 and Polish BWP-2000, I removed the last two from the page. There are separate pages. dendirrek (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure! The experimental Polish BWP-2000 IFV is based on the hull of SUM-Kalina mile-laying vehicle (prototype) which is based in its turn on Soviet MT-S tracked prime mover chassis. As for Yugoslavian M80 IFV - that was also a native design but its construction, specifications and design were inspired by Soviet BMP-1 and French AMX-10P. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox weapon should have one variant[edit]

It's far to confusing to have multiple variants in the infobox - it's supposed to give "at a glance" data about the vehicle. Sure with all the variant data in there it's more complete but it's almost impossible to read. See T-34 medium tank, a featured article, that uses the single variant approach, along with a table showing specification differences between variants.Megapixie (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello.
But T-34 has about as many variants as there were T-34 tanks. BMP-1 has four main variants: BMP (Ob'yekt 765sp1), BMP-1 (Ob'yekt 765sp2), Ob'yekt 765sp3 and BMP-1P (Ob'yekt 765sp4/5). Those are the variants that I included in that Infobox. Besides the only thing that distinguishes those vehicles in the Infobox is weight and power to weight ratio (and armament as in case of BMP-1P). That gives the reader a general overview of the differences between the variants and he/she can look up for more information in the article itself. - SuperTank17 (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The point is that it's uncluttered. Look at the armaments section:
73 mm 2A28 Grom low pressure smoothbore gun (40 rounds)[3] 9M14 Malyutka (AT-3 Sagger) ATGM for BMP-1 (4 + 1 rounds)[4] 9M111 Fagot (AT-4 Spigot) ATGM, 9M111-2 Fagot (AT-4B Spigot B) ATGM, 9M113 Konkurs (AT-5 Spandrel) ATGM or 9M113M Konkurs-M (AT-5B Spandrel B) ATGM for BMP-1P (4 rounds)[3]
It's really difficult to read. My point is that the information is better presented in a table which can easily emphasize the differences rather than the infobox. The infobox is better to give the reader high level information, i.e. how heavy, how fast, what weapons... To understand what's there at the moment, you'd actually have to understand the subject area to get the fact that there are many variants, and which one is most common. Megapixie (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello.
So what you're suggesting is to get one variant into the Infobox and show the differences between the four main variants with a use a table? - SuperTank17 (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I would suggest putting the either the most numerous or first major variant of the vehicle in the infobox (I think the 765sp3 is both in this case), and adding a table as per T-34 showing the differences. Megapixie (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. As for BMP-1 variants - Ob'yekt 765Sp3 is the best choice for infobox indeed as it represents the most numerous variant of BMP-1 IFV (Ob'yekt 765Sp3 was produced during 1973-1979). As for Soviet standard T-34 medium tank - there were two official main variants only (T-34-76 and T-34-85), around 7 variants for T-34-76 depending of manufacturer (tanks produced by differ tank works had visible differences), and 4 variants for T-34-76 depending of year of manufacture. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Operators list - Estonia[edit]

Estonian Army has never possed any BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicles. Army forum has a technics section where all the weapons in use of the Ground Force are introduced - there are no BMP type vehicles. http://www.sodur.com http://www.sodur.com/?id=412&sid=4

Neither have I ever seend or heard about Estonian BMP-1 machines on parades or military manouvres. Karabinier (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello.
There's a source supporting this. Also I heard that Estonia bought two BMP-1 IFVs from North Korea and used them as decoration however I was yet unable to find any sources supporting this.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The majority of Russian reference books I have don't mention BMP-1 IFVs among the small amount of types of armoured fighting vehicles used by Estonian Army. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

not needed images[edit]

i noticed that the article currently contains the following: 9 images for iraqi captured, or destroyed unites, five of them are in one subarticle, and four images for polish units, all of them are in one subarticle. that ofcourse is without counting the images in the operators subarticle. Does the article really needs all of those images? i mean that one image for polish BMP-1, and one image for an iraqi one would be enough. if the user want, he can check the wikimedia commons link for images. One last pharaoh (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all those pictures aren't all available BMP-1 images. We just picked a few to go with the article. I don't see anything wrong with that. All of the are in thumbnail form and are an important addition to the article. Also just because an image is a subarticle doesn't mean it can't be in the main article as well. Mostly because those are two separate articles. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
that's not a problem. many articles includ a gallery at the end such as the T-55, so those images that are not from wikimedia commons can be included in the article in a better way, and for those which are from wikimedia commons can be accessed through the link at the end of the article too. in another word, removing them from there current positions does not mean losing them, since the reader can see them some where else in the article.
what is so important about seeing some nine images for the same subject which is destroyed or captured iraqi units?, and what is important about seeing five images for polish units?. the image is important in a wikiarticle, when it shows a historical even, or illustrates the text. one image for polish units is enough, and one or two images for destroyed, or captured iraqi units are enough too.
BTW, either i donot understand u correctly, or u did not understand me, when u say that when an image is in the subarticle, that does not mean that it cannot be in the main article as well. Hello!!! when an image is in a subarticle it already IS in the main article, since the subarticle is part of the main article. the subarticle is for example the operators in the main article, so actually the main article consists of multiple subarticles.
If no one offers a solution, i am planning to solve it my self. One last pharaoh (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Look at the Service history subarticle in the T-55, and u will see that each single image describes an independent part of the subarticle, or a historical event. One last pharaoh (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you tell how many people will go to Wikipedia Commons to look up those pictures? The answer is not many. People either are too lazy to go there or don't even see the link because it's so far down.
Also the subarticle is a separate article. The main article only links to it.
And if you really have to remove images than here's what I suggest: Leave the images on the right and remove the ones on the left as it's always better for the images to be on the right side of the page. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE: I already removed the images you were talking about. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The user do not have to see them. We cannot force the user to see them if he do not want to. it looks like an images book or some thing. it is not important how many people would go there, and i do not know why do u assume they wont be many, but the important point here is that when we create a gallery, the user can see the images, so the article wont lose them, but now it looks silly having all of these images about the same thing. One last pharaoh (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said I already removed the images you were talking about. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I also think that only important images each of which illustrates the corresponding text fragment should be present in the articles. Otherwise the readers will see not the article but photo album :) Also the very important thing is the following - the huge amount of images belonged to one particular section (while another sections have a few images or don't have any at all) can cause the wrong impression about the subject of the article - for example, if to post images of vehicle of only one operator (despite the fact that many national armies use it; by the way I see here only one photo of Soviet BMP-1 in action), or to post a huge amount of photos of destroyed/damaged vehicles (for example, if to attach many photos of destroyed German Pz. VI during WWII or destroyed US Abrams during the Iraqi campaigns in corresponding articles quite many readers will come into conclusion about great disadvantages of those vehicles on battlefield and don't pay attention to their advantages, the same is true about Soviet vehicles, of course). So we need a careful neutral balance in illustrations which clearly indicate corresponding service of a vehicle, its advantages and disadvantages. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a problem that has haunted Wikipedia since its creation. The problem here is lack of free images or lack of people who could submit such. In case of no longer existing variants such as Iraqi Saddam and Saddam II non-free images can be used to ilustrate the subject of the article. That should also apply to pictures of vehicles in service with armies which don't exist anymore. However since there already is a picture of BMP-1 in service with Soviet Army, we can't use a non-free picture of Soviet BMP-1. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. As for the Soviet/Russian Army as the main user of BMP-1 IFVs - I think that important images will be, for example, the following: BMP-1 during Soviet military exercises in 1960s-1980s (better with infantrymen dismounted using rear doors to see the interior of troop compartment), BMP-1 during swimming to illustrate its amphibious ability, BMP-1D (better with fitted AGS-17 grenade launcher) and destroyed BMP-1 (for example, exploded on mine) for the Soviet War in Afghanistan section, BMP-1 during the wars in Chechnya as the illustration of its modern use by Russian Army or internal security troops, photos of the most notable modernization models - BMP-1P and BMP-1M. Several good illustrations can be found, for example, here -

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Zaloga 1994[edit]

does the reference state that egypt lost 40-50 vehicles? One last pharaoh (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir did put it as a reference so I presume the reference says that. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually the question was to the person who included the reference, and that doesn't mean that i assume him to be dishonest. Cheers. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW, it was not sourced, when i removed it. One last pharaoh (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Vladimir Historian, in case u donot want the claim about egyptian loses to be deleted, provide me with the exact statement where it's mentioned in the source. i did not say that u, or the source it self are dishonest, so taken easy. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I, on behalf of Vladimir have provided you with the scan of the page on which the info is mentioned. Can you please explains your actions? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
No one should act on behalf of another here Super tank, that's a discussion page, and wikipedia is for public, so please donot speak as if u and Vladimir are some kind of a team, or some thing.
Now, the source says that they are either captured, or destroyed, meaning that Egypt lost the mentioned number, but the source does not specify the way they were lost. I for one believe that Israel did not have neither the time, nor the ability to capture heavy equipment at the southern front. at least not in such numbers. the reason i believe so, is that the IDF was defending all over the war excepting for the fast initiative of turning around the third field army from the gape, ie. the israeli units were in a moving status all over the last course of the war, so even if we assume that with some miracle, egyptian troops would abandon their equipment in such situation, the israelis would not be able to capture these equipment due to the lack of both; time, and logistic abilities, since they were in hostile territory with limited territorial connection with other israeli forces in the sinai, where they could hardly support their 500 tanks, and 20,000 mechanized infantry with their vehicles.
Agreeing with me, or not is ur own opinion, but any way, the source did not specify the way they were lost by Egypt.
Thanx for reading. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
What you are doing here is questioning the Zaloga who is an expert. If you truly believe in what you wrote than you should find a reliable source that can prove to us that Zaloga was wrong. Also I think that you haven't read the scan. It says "The Israelis destroy or captured 40 to 60 Egyptian BMPs and about 50 to 60 Syrian BMPs."
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
What are u doing here is pretending to be not understanding simple english.
Please Read what did i write again, and donot accuse me of things i apparently donot do.
One more thing, try to keep it as friendly as possible. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
"but the source does not specify the way they were lost." my answer to that is "It says "The Israelis destroy or captured 40 to 60 Egyptian BMPs and about 50 to 60 Syrian BMPs.""
"Now, the source says that they are either captured, or destroyed, meaning that Egypt lost the mentioned number, but the source does not specify the way they were lost. I for one believe that Israel did not have neither the time, nor the ability to capture heavy equipment at the southern front. at least not in such numbers. the reason i believe so, is that the IDF was defending all over the war excepting for the fast initiative of turning around the third field army from the gape, ie. the israeli units were in a moving status all over the last course of the war, so even if we assume that with some miracle, egyptian troops would abandon their equipment in such situation, the israelis would not be able to capture these equipment due to the lack of both; time, and logistic abilities, since they were in hostile territory with limited territorial connection with other israeli forces in the sinai, where they could hardly support their 500 tanks, and 20,000 mechanized infantry with their vehicles." my answer to that is "What you are doing here is questioning the Zaloga who is an expert. If you truly believe in what you wrote than you should find a reliable source that can prove to us that Zaloga was wrong."
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
They were not questions, they donot need to be answered. what is ur comment on "the source says that they are either captured, or destroyed", and do not say that i am questioning zaloga. he did not specify how were they lost. i believe that in case the numbers are true, they were destroyed. i did not write in the article that they were destroyed, or captured, i said that they were lost, so i did not specify a way, just like zaloga.
Do u question Zaloga who is an expert? and should an expert be always right? One last pharaoh (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I completelly support SuperTank17 here. If you don't agree with Zaloga's info about losses of Arab BMPs during the Yom Kippur War - provide us with a reliable source (Egyptian, for example) which confirms another info about the amount of lost Egyptian BMPs and reasons of their losses. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which bases its info on reliable sources and not on author's opinions or author's own research even. All information should be published before you use it in Wikipedia, see rules. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but u are not the one that is going to explain to me how does wikipedia work!!!!!
U both donot need any further more explanation, so read again if u still donot understand. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As you don't understand how does the wikipedia work and its rules, especially the use of sources and deletion of cited information (considered as vandalism if you not provide us with your own reliable cited sources)- we will explain you this as much as necessary. --Vladimir Historian (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It will be very useful if One last pharaoh can help with the exact identification of the nationality of BMP captured by Israel forces, I mean photo in the BMP-1 article. Zaloga describes Egyptian and Syrian camouflage schemes in detail but they look a little bit similar on drawings and photos. I think now that BMP-1 was Egyptian, perhaps. Here is Syrian standard camouflage of BMP-1, note the Soviet initial green colour with Syrian sand and gray added colours - http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/sya_bmp-1.jpg

I think it's the same soviet desert pattern, so a white, and black photograph wont be very helpful. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Soviet BMPs delivered to Arab countries that time had standard green pattern not desert. Desert camouflages were added by Arab (Egyptian and Syrians). We are talking about colour photograph in the article.

--Vladimir Historian (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I donot know what makes u so sure of that, but any way i did not say that they used the soviet painting, i said the soviet pattern. I did not know u, or who ever did submit the suggestion, since it was not signed, and the who ever did not specify which image was he/she talking about. One of the egyptian patterns was the same pattern in the photograph with the difference being using green, yellow, and brown -lick the difference between the T-55 paining, where egypt used green, and sand-yellow, while syria used pale brown, and orange-yellow. another scheme is a one-color pattern using yellow - like iraqi, and american desert schemes -.
BTW, the northern command center, which i used to pass it by almost daily, had two BMP-1s pained in the 3-color pattern in front of the gate, but the color was then changed to the one-color pattern. I donot know if these are different ones, but i donot think so, since they were not for guarding any way, they were put on high stands like in museums, and so for decoration, maybe.
I hope that that was helpful enough, and glad that the whole matter is solved. One last pharaoh (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not solved. All you did was made a few unsourced statements and through revert wars tried to make your original research pass through. We have a scan from Zaloga's book with a sentence which clearly states that Israelis destroyed OR captured the mentioned vehicles. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring ur usage of we, the source did not specify the way they were lost, and stating that they were lost out of 200 captured or destroyed units from all sides seams to be a middle solution that satisfies all opinions. it's ur own opinion that it's not solved, and reverting would be considered vandalism, so let's just keep it as it is and donot heat the situation. Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
How can you say "the source did not specify the way they were lost" if the source does exactly that by stating "The Israelis destroyed or captured 40 to 60 Egyptian BMPs and about 50 to 60 Syrian BMPs." Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Supertank is correct. He has produced a published source and he is reporting it faithfully. If there is another published source that contradicts the one he supplied, both should be mentioned as per WP:NPOV. An opinion that the source may be wrong is original research. But in the absence of any source contradicting his, the edit should stand. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
ok, to make my self more clear -as if i have not been clear enough-, did the source say the the units were surely destroyed?
No.
Did the source say that they were surely captured?
No.
Did the source insure that they were lost?
Yes.
I believe that my idea does not need to be cleared any more, so please stop acting as if u donot understand it. One last pharaoh (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The source says they were surely both captured and lost. We cannot say anything else. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. We have to follow what the sources say. Since in this case there is only one source we have to say exactly what it says. One last pharaoh's uncertainly about the situation is not important, what matters is quality sources. We have three neutral editors supporting this and one editor with an obvious agenda trying to argue that some how the source is vague when it certainly is not. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
No offense Daniel, but i certainly donot know how did u become an admin, regarding ur behavior with other editors!
Follow the link to the image that SuperTank provided to find that the statement is "destroyed OR captured". One last pharaoh (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW, the word "lost" i used, could mean both destroyed or captured, but it was not mentioned in the source. are u trying to turn the discussion to have the result being replacing "destroyed" with "lost"? Not gonna happen. One last pharaoh (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a language issue, in English when Zaloga says "destroyed or captured", he means without any doubt that vehicles where both destroyed and captured. This is not up for any kind of debate, the source says "captured or destroyed" so we have to say "captured or destroyed." My admin status has nothing to do with this. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
And i never said that it has some thing to do with it. as far as i know, when i say "the car was painted in yellow, or brown", that means that it was either yellow, or brown. when i say "the car was pained in yellow, and brown", that means that it was yellow, and brown. maybe other editors misunderstood me in the beginning, so i want to know every one's opinion now, please. One last pharaoh (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Besides, we must avoid including the exact same statements used in the source. we can include the same informations, but not the same statements. remember ACIG.org, and El-Mansourah air battle, Daniel? One last pharaoh (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an issue with not understanding the language. This is a subtle but important point so I will try to explain it as clearly as possible. You are right in the case of the car example you gave. However when using verbs (captured/destoryed) instead of adjectives (yellow/brown) on a number of objects, the word "or" is used. If the word "and" was used as in "40-60 BMPs were captured and destroyed" it would indicate that 40-60 BMPs were captured and than destroyed implying a sequence of verb actions which was not the case. In English, the sentence "40-60 BMPs were captured or destroyed" means that 40-60 BMPs were lost, some being captured and some being destroyed. It is not an ambiguous sentence to a native speaker. I have no problem with rewording it to avoid copyright as long as the meaning stays the same. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
i guess that u are right. Thanx for clearing that out. One last pharaoh (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Tanks in Russia" :
    • {{cite book|author=Malyshev S.|year=2002|title=Tanks in Russia. Boyevaya Mashina Pekhoty BMP-1 (1964-2000)|publisher=Russian Motor Books|isbn=5-09-873406-4}}
    • <ref name="Otvaga">[http://otvaga.vif2.ru/Otvaga/armour-rus-bmp1/a_bmp1.htm Боевая машина пехоты БМП-1<!-- Bot generated title -->]
  • "Global Security" :
    • [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/bmp-1-specs.htm Global Security]
    • [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/bmp-1.htm Global Security]

DumZiBoT (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. As for "Tanks in Russia" - I didn't notice any problem, everything seems to be correct (this name corresponds to the book by Malyshev only, not to otvaga site). But "Global Security" was checked, the problem was noticed indeed and these two links (one of them represents sub-link from another one, as you can see) were separated in the reference list as independent ones. Everything is correct now. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sources[edit]

I'd like to suggest we avoid self-published and dubious sources in this article. In particular, using scale model-kit advertisements as a reference is really dubious IMO and does not rise to the reliability standard we ought to be aiming for. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I also noticed scale-model kit advertisements here :) I will see what good source we can use instead as the information from that source is correct (I've checked), nevertheless. On the other hand, I must note that this article has an excellent large list of reliable sources including good online sources which cited archive army and manufacturer documents as well as original army manuals for crew members (from my collection :). I am also planning to translate all titles of used Russian sources into English (in my opinion, they should be presented with two titles - original on Russian and translated for English-language Wikipedia). If we have sources on other languages (Polish, etc) - it will be useful to translate their titles into English also. I also ask you to give the exact titles of sources in question in future in order to find, check and replace them easily if necessary, not just mention the fact that, perhaps, several sources are self-published/dubious. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'd say at minimum references 6 and 15 are self-published sources that do not meet wikipedia standards. There are others but those jump out at me. There's simply no need to clutter and weaken the article with these references. After all, the BMP is a well-referenced vehicle. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
References 8 and 67 point to the same plastic model kit advertisement site and should also be eliminated. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
We still have numerous self-published sources. I've tagged the article. DMorpheus (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the references 6 and 15 (nevertheless, they give a correct info) introduced by SuperTank17, and replace them with several good and published Russian- and English-language sources. It's a pity that these self-published sources are in English as we have not so many English-language sources here. I also noticed at least two more self-published sources in the article. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just found 7 dead reference links and a what appears to be a self published source, and tagged them as such. Between them, they are used about 60 times inline. Hohum (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Well done. The article is weakened by some of these references. DMorpheus (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I've started providing references from Zaloga and Sarson, more to come. Hohum (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've deleted references to Gary's and JED again. Neither meets the reliable source criteria. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Article size[edit]

This article currently stands at 147 KB long; according to the Wikipedia guidelines at WP:Article size, any article over 60 KB should probably be split into smaller articles, and any article over 100 KB definitely should be. As such, I have added the 'too long' template to this article; its current size makes it very slow to load and edit, and somewhat difficult to navigate. It would be preferable if parts of it were split off into their own articles, according to summary style: for example, the 'Service History' section could make a separate article all by itself. Please do not remove this template until the size issues have been resolved. Terraxos (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to trim some excess content. There are too many photos and far too much detail that would be better covered in separate articles linked to this one. At times this article reads like the BMP user's manual, and that is far too detailed for this purpose. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I have shortened it to about 59K. I did this by taking out a lot of trivia and also by creating a new article on the 2A28 Grom. I don't claim either article is perfect now (far from it) but they should provide a better basis for editing now. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You shortened it alright... by deleting sourced information. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Right, that was the goal. Not everything that is sourced is worthy of inclusion. We don't need to know how many bolts it takes to hold the drive sprocket.....DMorpheus (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
So what you're saying is this: when there's too much information, amputate. What harm is there in splitting this article instead of robbing Wikipedia of detailed information? You did so with the 2A28 Grom why couldn't you do so with the whole description and development sections?
No, what I am saying is, when an article is jammed full of trivia, often backed by silly sources, take it out. If you want to have a serious discussion, do not mis-characterize what your fellow editors are writing please.
A separate article on BMP development might be very interesting; that's an excellent idea since it pioneered the whole IFV idea.
A separate article on description doesn't make sense to me at first blush but maybe you can flesh that idea out some. it seems to me the base article (here) should contain a balanced description - but not an owner's manual full of stuff. I believe we are close to the right level of detail now, although there is still room for improvement/trimming.
Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've created the BMP Development article; have at it. DMorpheus (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe there's still some hope for all of this. IMHO BMP-2's and BMP-3's development sections should be fused into the BMP Development article. That way we shorten them there as well and have the whole development of the BMP series in one place. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. The article is there; add to it. DMorpheus (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

First mass-produced IFV[edit]

It is claimed that BMP-1 was the first, but the Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 was well a decade before the BMP-1. This also invalidates the section stating that before the BMP-1 there were only APC "battle taxis". BP OMowe (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)