Talk:BMD-1

Weight appears to be incorrect
I believe that the weight is incorrect.

If you look at http://community.webshots.com/photo/228961166/338310278ShxjmX you can see it's tiny. Various other sources report it's weight at 7,500kg - 13.3 tonnes would make it nearly as heavy as a BMP-1

Sources that report the it as 7,500kg.
 * http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/bmd-1.htm
 * http://www.nasog.net/datasheets/armour/apc/Bmd1_Airborne_Combat_Vehicle.htm

Megapixie 1 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)


 * Further, the article is flawed in a number of ways- for one, it claimed that the BMD-2 has the BMP-2 turret, which is false, it merely incorporates the same armament of the BMP-2, I have since fixed that. More of a problem however is the assertion that the BMD-3 is a variant of the BMD-2- it has no relation to the original BMD chassis. Previously I amended the BMD-3M to BMD-4 to reflect the current nomenclature, but I think a new BMD-3 article is required, or, failing that, a new section in the existing article. A source for the claim that the army is considering using the GAZ-3931 to replace the BMD is also required- the adoption of the BMD-4 and its continuing procurement, together with the new BTR-DZ and variants to replace the BTR-D variants currently in service, indicate that no such plan is in the offing. Basically, the article is in need of serious amendment ... Beryoza 06:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Pallet or no Pallet?
In the article it says that the BMD is packed on a special pallet for air delivery, but in this video on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8tHiZ03U6c) about the BMD-1 it appears that it is not on any pallet when it is parachuted out of the plane. Can someone please explain to me why that is? Wikiphyte 16:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at the video at 1:30 and 4:29, you can see the pallet structure under the tracks of the BMD as it drops. The I've only seen textual descriptions of the pallet structure, but I'm guessing that's what it is. Megapixie 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahhh I see. To me it looked like the tracks were riding on what I could only guess as being rollers. Oh well, thanks for pointing it out.:)Wikiphyte 12:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

BMD-2 Article
There isn't a separate one (it redirects to BMD-1). But in the see-also section, there is a link to it. I don't know if it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.51.106 (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed—this only serves to confuse. —Michael Z. 2008-06-24 03:41 z 

Requested move
Using a slash in prose is rarely a good choice, and probably never in a title. BMD-1/2 reads “BMD and a half” or, at best, expands to “BMD-1 or BMD-2, or both.” A better title would be simply naming the subject, BMD-1 and BMD-2, or an inclusive name: BMD (armoured fighting vehicle), or BMD (airborne fighting vehicle), or possibly Boyevaya Mashina Desanta. We might be able to appropriate the name BMD from the disambiguation page, since there is no English expansion for this. —Michael Z. 2008-06-24 03:56 z 


 * The same thing was done in T-55 article when it was named T-54/55 and somehow no one had any complaints. Also we can't use titles like BMD because the BMD-3 (which is a part of BMD family of vehicles) has its own separate article.


 * BTW last time I checked each of the things listed in BMD disambiguation page have their own separate article.


 * Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * “T-54/55” is used in many reference works, and it reads unambiguously. I have never seen “BMD-1/2.” —Michael Z. 2008-06-24 13:34 z 


 * Than how come the term BMP-1/2 is ok while the term BMD-1/2 isn't? Also you must remember that there aren't that many sources about BMD-1 and BMD-2 as there are for T-54 and T-55 therefore a number of used terms is smaller.


 * Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * BMP-1/2 is not ok either. —Michael Z. 2008-06-24 14:52 z 


 * That why didn't you say so when it was used in BMP-1 article in "The Groups of Soviet Forces in Central and Eastern Europe" section? The idea for this move came from that.


 * Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Because I'm not yer Wiki Momma. —Michael Z. 2008-06-24 15:50 z 


 * I never said you were. Anyway I think the title is self-explanatory.


 * Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What is preventing the page from being split into two articles, one for BMD-1, and one for BMD-2? The BMP-1 and 2 are similarly related, and yet they have separate articles. Why can't the same be done for these? Parsecboy (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe not a bad idea. But what should we name it until someone has done the work? —Michael Z. 2008-06-25 05:05 z 


 * I already thought about splitting the article and came into conclusion that there's too little information available for BMD-2 which is basically the BMD-1 with the new turret (with some minor changes in the hull). The BMP-2 on the other hand is a different vehicle from BMP-1 although it shares some similarities. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference quality
I've marked three sources as dead or self published that are referenced inline about fifty times. Hohum (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Magnesium alloy armor
What is the source for this nonsense? Especially for the "cast" part — such idiocy is rare even in western sources on russian AFVs. All BMDs had hulls made from rolled aluminium alloy sheets, with steel turrets. There is actually one magnesium alloy detail — a back hatch lid, but it had never been a source for such horror stories, and was retained on all produced BMDs. --Saə (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Crew amount
The short discription says 2 + 6 but detailed description (cmdr + mg gunner + 3 troops) equals to 5 (unless my math is not mathing) Can anyone clarify if it is 5 or 6? Thanks Currently I left it on 3-4 troops. Amnop1234 (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)