Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'bmp-3'.
Found 2 results
Hi, Just had a few questions about how the bmp 3 chooses it's weapon for engaging different targets. The bmp3 right now has a really bad habit of opening up on tanks with the autocannon while it clearly has a far better choice of the atgm right there. I was playing one of the russian campaigns and got a spot on a ukranian t64 bv. now that doesn't have a laser warning receiver and so i thought cool the bmp will launch an atgm and that will be the end of that. If it still doesn't go down then the autocannon should be enough to mop up. but the bmp just wastes about 5 seconds using the autocannon by which point the tank spots it, shoots and then the bmp decides to use the atgm. shot connects, missile connects, both dead. I feel like the bmp refuses to use the missile much at all unless the engagement range is very long. By the way the tank was literally out in the open and the bmp (zero subsytem damage) crew was a veteran crew and so i don't think the risk of the missile hittting terrain comes into play.
After watching a vid I was directed to from Maps and Mods for CMBS, I noticed this. While I grant this isn't Bradley vs, say, a BMD-3 or BMD-4, I believe it speaks to a fundamentally flawed methodology. This concerns me a bit because this guy doesn't really understand what he's talking about and has an ever growing series of videos, not to mention many interested viewers. It would also be nice if he showed each vehicle a bit before burying it under giant lettering! Don't know about the rest of you, but until now, I never heard of a ZLC 2000. And if you think that was a fluke, take a look at this one of a M2A3 Bradley vs a BMP-3. He thinks he's comparing like for like, while dazzlingly ignorant of how big the disparity is even when the item compared is ostensibly the same. Talking sensor performance, ammo performance, etc. And in talking about the Bradley losing a bunch of procurement competitions, he hasn't a word to say about cost. Some of this so-called data is incomprehensible at best, outright lies at worst. For example, I know for a fact the earliest Bradley was specced to survive a 152 mm airburst at 18 meters above that AFV. I know this because I've read the survivability requirements and saw pics of the test shot. You'd never know it from what he presents. Modern US Tanks and AFVs by Green and Stuart confirms this designed hardness vs 152 mm on page 43 and also notes the vehicle is proof against 14.5 AP--from the start (drastically upgraded since). Regards, John Kettler