Irans Boragh don't use that anti-30mmAP armour package. But if the Boragh is all around 12,7mm protected, the BMP-2 is surely too.
From the Ministry of Defence Export website:
"Provided with micro alloy steel body 5-19 mm in diameter, and ballistic tolerance of 12.7 mm cartridges." So
not all-round .50 cal protection then, seeing as it varies from 5-19 mm of armour.
http://www.mindexcenter.ir/product/boraq-armored-personnel-carrier
Btw, the Boraq is a BMP-1 upgrade, not BMP-2.
My point is: If used correctly, no M2 variant can't protect itself against the ~65 year old 100mm gun. A IFV is just not designed to do that.
When did I say the job of APCs is to fight T-54s? Engaging tanks offensively should be for our own tank force, and defensively by ATGM teams. Our only enemy which has 100 mm guns is ironically the UAE with their BMP-3s. So your argument applies to a war situation with them. If it was the US, it'd be a different story. And of course we should plan to defend against them more than any other enemy.
Now you say it on your won. Instead concentrating to counter autocanon fire, better just accept that a M2 will not be able to survive a BMP-2 fired AT-5 (which outranges TOW) with its passive armour.
You either go for something that is really heavy, like the Namer or you accept your weak points and limitations and concentrate on your firepower.
Is it worth to get one M2 for 4-6 BMP-2, twice higher weight and no amphibious capability, no high ROF burst autocanon? On the other side you get non-tandem RPG-7 and 30mm AP protection plus TI optics.
Sell one of the 5 BMP-2 and equip your 4 others with TI optics...
The calculation makes no sense.
Let's get this straight. I was using the M2 as an example. Iran isn't going to buy any M2s. But we need to know our enemy. If we're planning to fight American armoured vehicles, we should know that their main IFV is the M2 with the 25 mm chain gun. Although other NATO countries like UK and Poland have 30 mm guns on their IFVs, we do have to watch costs. So the bulk of our IFVs should be able to hold their own against these M2s. And no, you can't just answer ATGM. Sometimes there are engagements at closer ranges and the gun is more effective. If the enemy has the element of surprise on BMPs they don't even need to use their ATGMs. ATGMs are more used for long-range engagements. You have to consider the likelihood of IFV v IFV engagements at close range, especially when the US has 2500 M2/M3s.
This IFV should have a minimum of protection against 25 mm APDS in the front (could be upgraded to 30 mm if IFV+APC up-gunning trend gains traction) and protection from .50 cals everywhere else. It does not need to be amphibious - if the mainland is invaded, we'd be on the defensive. Limited offensives across rivers could make use of bridge-layers and upgraded existing BMP-2s, which could also handle amphibious ops. ATGMs, proper comms, NV and other optics are a must.
Seems like I'm talking about something like the Kurganets-25, which is also amphibious. It doesn't even seem like a very difficult capability to add. The Kurganets is a very advanced vehicle and seems like the BMP-2's replacement. It even has APS to defend against the ATGMs you keep talking about.
The punishment it has to endure from a 10 round burst 30mm HE would be massive, not to talk about a hit by a AT-5.
30 mm HE would do nothing to the armour plate of an M2. Seeing as it's rated against 30 mm APDS. At best it could damage a track or optic with a lucky hit, but the M2 would still be able to retreat.
In any case the M2 would encounter 4-5 BMP-2...
I distinctly remember you saying the Karrar would only cost $500k to produce. So an Iranian modern IFV, equivalent of the Kurganets-25 would be far cheaper, nowhere near the M2's cost.
The Russians have their BMP-2 fleet. Their mechanized units are already there.
Now they could start thinking about better armoured, heavy IFV to create a shock unit together with the T-14. That would be an added capability by loosing amphibious capability. But its very unclear when the money for a T14 and T-15 combo would be available.
Just ask yourself which countries have already a BMP-2 IFV capability for their mechanized troops and today enough extra budget to acquire a Namer like IFV to replace all BMP-2-level IFVs.
Iran is certainly not among them.
But Iran has enough infantry troops that lack a BMP-2 level IFV, so that capability would increase survivability and combat effectiveness for them.
You're confusing the BMP-2 with an APC. Just because it has poor armour doesn't mean it is an APC. It is the job of APCs to mechanise the infantry, they're the armoured taxis. IFVs are meant to stick around and fight with their heavier armour and firepower. The Russians already have the BTR series of vehicles to mechanise their infantry. The only reason the BMP-1 and 2 are in widespread service is because by the time the BMP-3 was coming along, the USSR was collapsing so they could *only* build 2000 and operate 700 of them. They're essentially being used as APCs, in the same way that some nations convert old tanks into heavy IFVs. The Russians plan to equip their army with purpose built modern APCs in the form of the
Bumerang.
What you're in fact proposing is an up-gunned APC, whereas I'm talking about an actual IFV. Modern APCs have frontal .50 cal protection, 7.62 protection everywhere else (good against LMGs that are present in all infantry squads, so it'd have to be 7.62 NATO), and a 12.7/14.5 mm gun as armament. The 30 mm gun isn't necessary for APCs because they are not intended to stay in the fight, merely get in and get out. Yes, Iran needs new APCs to mechanise its troops if that's what you mean, but no it is not the BMP-2.
