A BMP FOR ALL SEASONS

By Jim Naughton

A BMP for ALL SEASONS – the BMP-1P

Nordic Forces had a pequena sorpressa [little surprise] when I first read it. The first faction in the book is the Finns, and after shaking my head about a Finnish 1985 tank with KONTAKT-1 ERA I found the ‘Finnish’ version of the BMP-1. No missile, but upgradeable to the 9K111 Fagot (gotta love Soviet names; it means BASSOON) or in Western parlance, AT-4 SPIGOT. The picture was spot on. BMP-1P.

Irony. Bored with building BMP-1s with 9M14 Malyuta (AT-3 SAGGER) missiles, and frustrated by their tendency to fall off, I was about halfway through building two boxed sets worth of BMP-1 as the ‘P’ variant. After a good chuckle, I got back to building them while considering how to reveal this surprising turn of events.

Battlefront had studiously ignored the existence of this variant under the KISS principle for years. Until they introduced Marder II with its superarmor I didn’t blame them. Now BMP-1P appears in a minor nation’s army for the first time, and unlike the usual detailed description of the nation’s gear it’s called just BMP-1. Almost like Battlefront didn’t want it noticed.

There’s two stories Battlefront could have told you, one about where the vehicles came from and one about how the Finns got them. Battlefront skipped those pages, perhaps for lack of space, so I’ll tell both briefly.

Soviet BMP-1P

The year is 1973. Fifty years ago this October. BMP-1 had its combat debut in the Yom Kippur War. The SAGGER is credited with killing many Israeli tanks, but its lethality, is, in retrospect, probably overstated. The Soviet advisers had been kicked out of Egypt for gossiping about the upcoming offensive, so direct feedback from the Suez front was impossible. On the Syrian front, the Soviets got a better picture of the good and the bad. And the bad was missile performance and gun accuracy. Since they were getting the same feedback from their own officers, they began programs that eventually resulted in the BMP-2.

The poor missile performance was caused by the missile climbing into the air and thus getting off the sight picture of the BMP-1 gunner, a problem not found in a ground launch. There was a tendency to overcorrect.  A simple solution was mounting a missile in a different place.  Or a different missile.

With BMP-x at least seven years away, a near-term solution was required. And the BASSOON was ready to play, first entering production in 1970. In the mid-70s the Soviets decided to replace the SAGGER with SPIGOT and its close cousin, the 9K113 KONKURS (AT-5 Spandrel). Both missiles share the 9P135 launcher. BMP-1P leveraged off decisions already made in the BMP-2 program, mounting the 9P135 on the roof of the turret.

The gunner has to stand exposed in the turret hatch of the BMP-1, but the large hatch gives some protection in the direction he is firing. And he’s no more exposed than the gunners on the M150 TOW vehicle, the Marder or Warrior with MILAN mount, etc. The rail for the SAGGER is removed and the feed gate is closed with welded armor plate. Some variants got a six-pack of smoke grenade launchers on the rear of the turret.

Soviets began producing new BMP-1Ps late in 1978 while waiting for the BMP-2 program to mature. We know the Czechs produced them because the East Germans bought 151. I’m still looking for evidence the Poles produced them. The Soviets also converted many BMP-1s to BMP-1P as the aging BMP-1s returned to the plant for capital improvement programs. The East Germans took that route converting 700 into BMP-1P in their own workshops, equipping all their first line units in lieu of spending scarce foreign exchange on BMP-2s.

We know that because the unified German state had a fire sale in 1990-91 and the Finns bought 110 with other customers taking at least 500. Other PACT states had the capability to rebuild their BMP-1s in this manner and occasionally you find pictures. So basically, without using imaginary ‘well they knew there was a war coming and goosed up their production’ reasoning the PACT alliance had several thousand BMP-1Ps available in 1985.

Finnish BMPs…and other things

This brings us to the Finns. The Finns purchased their first BMP-1s from the Soviets in 1981: a whopping 85 units. Sources allege the Soviets never sold BMP-1P so these were probably reconditioned BMP-1s or new BMP-1s produced specifically for foreign sales. Whether they sold the missiles then or later, the Finnish army purchased SAGGERs although probably the SACLOS AT-3c variant if associated with BMPs. The suitcase launcher was never upgraded. We know the Finns owned the SAGGER according to the Stockholm Peace Institute.
Their next purchase was 1990, 110 units of BMP-OST (aka BMP-1P) from the unified German state. Their first BMP-2s were in 1988-89, 28 units.

In a minor aside, the entire Finnish T72 tank fleet was T72M1, roughly equal to T72A in terms of protection. The got 63 tanks from the Soviet Union in 1984-86 and acquired 97 from the unified German state in 1992. I’m going way out on a limb here, and stating the East Germans were still using them in TY 1985. Their T55s weren’t upgraded until 1989 saw the Czechs exporting fire control systems and the armor bulges.

So in simple terms, much of the NORDIC Forces Finnish armor inventory is dated to the same period as the Leopard 2A5, i.e. 6 years after the Cold War ended. Disappointing to see it, as the Finns would still be tough with T72Ms like the PACT and Arabs and baseline T55s with regular BMP-1s. They didn’t need the gimmick.

Building the BMP-1P

Modelers will need to know how to modify their toys to make the BMP-1P. You need a pin drill (often called pin vise) or a Dremel (or similar) and a drill bit a hair or so bigger than the mounting tip on the bottom of the SPIGOT/SPANDREL that comes in the BMP kit. Rest the launch tube on the large periscope housing; mark the place where the tip hits the turret top. If using a Dremel, make a divot with a hobby knife to keep the drill bit from wandering.

I used the pin drill method while watching TV. You also must clip off the launch rail and file any stub away. The last step in turret assembly is to put a drop of superglue on the mounting tip and then to the top of the periscope housing and hold it in place until the superglue grabs.

The adventurous can take the extra step of cutting the mounting tip of the missile launcher, drilling the launcher for a piece of piano wire, and mounting the launcher with enough piano wire that the launcher is eye level with the oversize Soviet tank crewman in the commander’s hatch. Definitely use the pin drill for this.

Lastly, no need to mount the missile launcher. An amusing Cold War anecdote is how some Western Intelligence interpreted the appearance of BMP-1P at the front. You see, the Soviet norm (we would call it SOP) was to keep the tracker, the extension for the mounting, and the missile inside the vehicle to protect the missile and tracker.

There was a strong argument that the Soviets were abandoning the BMP-launched missile because of the SAGGER’s poor performance. Then expended launch tubes affixed to the top of turrets appeared in training exercises and were noted by Western liaison teams. Purists will mount the stub of the pintle leaving the missile off for this configuration.

Using the BMP-1P

You can always use the BMP-1P models you build as BMP-1. Allows you to keep units straight if you’re using base green PACT vehicles.

In friendly games, just switch the missile statistics. The performance of the SPIGOT is given on the supplemental card for all PACT BTR infantry and the Afghanski battalion. It has a range of 8” to 40″ with AT=19 HEAT warhead. This works even in point-based friendly games: examining the various units in Team Yankee, the ground-mount SPIGOTs cost 2 AP with transport and the Cuban ground-mount SAGGERs cost the same. The cheaper Syrian SAGGERs are based on Iraqi/Syrian ‘soft’ stats and the availability of MILANs.

You can do the same for the AT-5 SPANDREL if playing scenario-based games. Points-based games are another issue.  Pointing the BMP-1P with SPANDREL must compare and contrast the gun and the missile. The BMP-1’s 73mm cannon is HEAT and thus nurfed by BDD, CHOBHAM, APPLIQUE and SLAT and pretty weak against high side armor or Bazooka Skirts. The 30mm autocannon on BMP-2 is lethal against virtual any armored vehicle through SA=8 and particularly lethal against light armor. While on the move, the autocannon and 73mm have equivalent lethality against infantry but the 30mm doubles the chance of a pin. The only place where the 73mm shines is versus SA=8 and no special protection against HEAT. Basically the M60.

Essentially, if you make the BMP-1P with SPANDREL cost the same as BMP-2, it won’t be played in a points-based game. For different points cost, there are some examples to reference. The differential between BMD-1 and BMD-2 is 1 AP (There is a BMD-1P, by the way). The differential between Finnish BMP-1 with SPIGOT and BMP-2 is zero for the small unit with 2 x BMP and 1 AP for the larger 3 x BMP unit.

So empirical evidence says the upgrade shouldn’t cost much. I suggest two ways the BMP-1P with SPANDREL can be simply introduced into a points-based game. First, and my preference, is build the unit as BMP-1 and add 2 AP to upgrade the entire unit. This is consistent with the way the gun-launched missiles are treated save for the AT-11 SNIPER.

The second is to build units as BMP-2 and subtract 2 AP from the small unit and 1 AP more for medium and 1 AP more at large. This has the downside that a 4 x BMP-1P unit with SPANDREL costs the same as BMP-1. This has the advantage of preserving some of the cost differential in the bigger units.

In either case, HQ BMP and recon BMP upgrade for +1 AP.

Last, availability is an issue. The simplest rule is to require all BMP-1s in a Formation to upgrade to BMP-1P. Further upgrade to BMP-1P with SPANDREL requires a BMP-2 unit slot that trades with BMP-1; e.g. PACT motor rifle battalions can have one BMP-2 company or one BMP-1P company with SPANDREL not both. The issue here is the availability of the SPANDREL missile.

This, then, is the abbreviated story of the BMP-1P. I’ve filled in the background and given a short detour into Finnish acquisition of ‘advanced’ systems. I’ve briefly described the minor modification required to make the model, Finnish or otherwise, and provided a template for using it in PACT forces. Happy gaming!