Unattended or insufficiently attended Humongous Mecha tend to get hijacked. This becomes even more likely if they robot in question is a prototype.
Doctrinally the BMD series are not really APCs or IFVs because of their minuscule troop capacity. The BMD offers airborne a chance to employ armored shock tactics they don't normally get against rear-echelon troops who probably lack AT weapons, maybe, if you're lucky and nobody has a .50cal for some reason.
However it's more realistically a glorified transport system for an ATGM launcher and a (fairly hefty, it is a 30mm after all) autocannon to deal with enemy armor. Kind of like if someone had stuck a "must also transport four guys" requirement on the Wiesel AWC for no good reason.
edited 22nd Dec '15 8:01:04 PM by Night
Nous restons ici.Well the good reason is that the four guys don't wanna walk.
Presumably they'd disembark to provide screening and try to put two or four rounds center-of-mass to any ambitious imperialists with AT-4 launchers. If nothing else, you could load up the passenger space with extra ammo and other supplies.
edited 22nd Dec '15 8:49:25 PM by AFP
To be fair, from what I can glean of FM 100-2-2 (Specialised Warfare and Rear Area Support) it seems that "overwhelming firepower" or "significant protection" were never two of the requirements (and hence it feels somewhat dishonest to try to use something that they were never aiming for as a yardstick). Their main value was their ability to surprise the enemy, improve the chances of deep penetration, and effect a rapid exploitation - all of which calls for rapid manoeuvre.
The use of air droppable AFVs was simply a means of rectifying the perennial airborne problem of a lack of firepower whilst simultaneously maximising rates of advance.
EDIT:
Though off-topic, it is interesting to note the Soviets deemed enemy tanks and aircraft to be the two major threats to airborne units after landing; this may also have had an impact on their decision to deploy air droppable AFVs.
edited 23rd Dec '15 6:07:36 AM by Flanker66
Locking you up on radar since '09Paraguay to reactivate M3 Stuarts, M4 Shermans - to be used as operational trainers.
THE SHERMAN MARCHES ON
Schild und Schwert der ParteiNice VDV article, though I'd like to add that those bastards have always been uppity when it came to reforms or cuts, - "Fuck you, we're already good enough!" and so on - so it's more likely the fault of the entire organisation rather than only its leader that the VDV remained mostly unchanged during the reforms.
I wonder if people have any other articles like that, it's interesting to read how the transformation of the Russian military is viewed from the outside, particularly now that Syria's made it clear that they are no longer the stumblebumps they used to be.
re: VDV article: yes, I was pretty happy when I found it, too.
My impression of the VDV is that it's pretty comparable to the USMC in institutional terms, a specialist arm with a lot more autonomy than would be necessarily logical because of its prestige. Except, whereas the USMC still falls under the aegis of the US Navy, the VDV is all but independent, and while the USMC loves to complain about getting the castoffsnote the VDV seems to have a much louder voice when it comes to procurement.
Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.
Throughout the oughties, the VDV had the dubious honour of being the only part of the Russian military that was still viewed by the people in a positive light, so a lot of its modern prestige is actually caused by the rest of our armed forces making it look much better that it really was by comparison. Which is what makes their complaints that the VDV is always getting the best of everything so annoying.
edited 2nd Jan '16 2:45:45 PM by KnitTie
Sabre: I have to briefly counter that up to the F-35B and past decade or so the Marines getting a lot of older equipment was a fact of life. They also occupy a different niche for a good reason. Every time the US has seriously considered doing away with the Marines something pops up and we suddenly need them again as Ampib capable assault troops.
Who watches the watchmen?
rollin' on dubs
An Urban Legend is that after World War Two and in the run up to Korea, the Army chief of staff and a few congress critters toyed with the idea of folding the Marines into the Army. Truman (being National Guard) asked the Commandant about this in a meeting.
He said, sure, just make every Marine private a sergeant and bump up the rest by two ranks because Marines are tougher and better trained.
The Army dropped the matter after that...according to legend....
During the Cold War, as the Army got the M1 then M 1 A 1, the Marines had to deal with the M-60. After Desert Storm they got the M 1 A 1, but the weight meant "issues" with transportation. LCAC's can only move an M1 in the calmest seas. As the M 1 A 1 gave way to the M 1 A 2 the tank gained weight.
The US Army tried to use the LAV-25, that lead to the Stryker.
I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....

Or use your soldiers to soften up the armour landing
Inter arma enim silent leges