Thewood1 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 So ran a test with a BMP-2M (normal motivation, 0 leader, etc.). Other side was an M-2a3 with ERA and the same normal parameters. Each was facing 90 deg from the other. Had an HQ unit in the BMP and the M2. Ran it 10 times and 6 of those the BMP spotted first. In 4 the M2 spotted first. The main difference in surviving seemed to be the laser warning system on the M2 gave a big heads up and smoke screen. Overall, the BMP died first 7 times. The M2 seemed to marginally survive better when hit than the BMP. It did take quite a few more hits to kill the M2. It was only 10 runs, but I feel comfortable that a BMP with a passenger can perform almost as well, and maybe slightly better, than an M2...if all other parameters are equal. I am almost certain that minor changes in parameters or situation will skew the results significantly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) Only the ones he doesn't like. Ha, inglorious HATO lapdog assumption! BMP-3 basic model, BMP-2M, and T-90A. Everything else seems fine. Especially the T-90MS. Models are the same, but with modifications in the case of the BMP-2M. But the model doesn't matter really does it its the code. Wood, try it without units in the vehicles. Edited March 5, 2015 by Stagler 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) For what it's worth... Spotting times for BMP-2M vs Stryker, 1200 meters Mean = 72.4 seconds 95% confidence interval for Mean: 57.41 thru 87.42 Standard Deviation = 55.4 Hi = 214. Low = 15 Median = 47.0 Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 45.1 Spotting times for Stryker M1126 vs BMP-2M, 1200 meters Mean = 29.1 seconds 95% confidence interval for Mean: 14.38 thru 43.88 Standard Deviation = 15.5 Hi = 73 Low = 1 Median = 25.5 Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 11.6 Number of times the Stryker spotted first: 22 Number of times the BMP-2M spotted first: 7 1 tie ... Spotting times for BMP-2M vs Stryker, 500 meters Mean = 21.9 seconds 95% confidence interval for Mean: 17.97 thru 25.83 Standard Deviation = 12.5 Hi = 53 Low = 4 Median = 20.0 Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 9.17 Spotting times for Stryker M1126 vs BMP-2M, 500 meters Mean = 16.0 seconds 95% confidence interval for Mean: 12.11 thru 19.96 Standard Deviation = 8.58 Hi = 35 Low = 2 Median = 14.0 Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 6.43 Number of times the Stryker spotted first: 20 Number of times the BMP-2M spotted first: 9 1 tie Note that each test has a sample size of 30 which is pretty low for this type of test, and the testing was not entirely scientific since the Strykers and BMPs were spotting each other instead of a common target, so the results should be viewed as suggestive rather than definitive. That having been said, it appears the Stryker has a significant edge at all ranges but it is more pronounced at longer range. However, the Stryker does not spot first every time. Edited March 5, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Wood, try it without units in the vehicles. That is stupid...in the BMP-2M, the leader of the passengers mans the commanders 360. If you take out the passenger, you only have a gunner and a driver. The M2 has three crew. This has been talked about quite a bit on these forums in the last few weeks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I want to not make any assumptions because I assume people use some common sense, but... If you don't have the 360 thermal commanders sight or its not manned, you are at a distinct disadvantage in sight versus any vehicle that does. Again, it has to be manned. From CMSF and CMBS, I know and have seen that any IFV without a commander will be toasted almost all the time by any IFV that has one, depending on orientation. And that makes sense, especially at longer ranges. Vanir...did your BMP2 have passengers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Another item: It is spurious to compare spotting ability when the units are looking at different targets. The comparison just shows how long a BMP-2 takes to see a Stryker. That's an apple. The other one is how long it takes a Stryker to see a BMP-2. That's an orange. Stagler, if you want to have an apples to apples comparison, have EACH of the BMP-2 and Stryker spot the same unit (which doesn't matter what it is). For example, set a T-90 at the end of your test zone. Put a Stryker at the other. Time it. Now, replace the Stryker with a BMP-2 and have IT spot the T-90. See? Now you have apples to apples. As VaB stated with his data, a LARGE set is needed. Usually about 100-200 are "accepted", depending on precisely what is being looked at. Having a duel, where the opposing units shoot at each other, doesn't test spotting. It tests combat ability against one another. Tight covered arcs are needed. Units need to be at a high morale level so they will obey your covered arc. Good luck. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Vanir...did your BMP2 have passengers? Nope. 2-man crew only. Same with the Strykers. I may add some passengers to see what difference it makes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) There is a very interesting graphic here under the M1A2 SEP portion, in the form of a drawing which shows how, from ODS on, US thermals stack up vs Russian ones. Though the gap is closing, as of 2003, the latest model of the Gen 2 M1A2 thermals still held the edge over the Gen 2 thermals on the T-72MP. This may well be part of the problem. Nor is it just range. Look at the overall system capabilities: (Fair Use from above) "The 2nd Gen FLIR is a fully integrated engagement-sighting system designed to provide the gunner and tank commander with significantly improved day and night target acquisition and engagement capability. This system allows 70% better acquisition, 45% quicker firing and greater accuracy. In addition, a gain of 30% greater range for target acquisition and identification will increase lethality and lessen fratricide. The Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) provides a hunter killer capability. The 2nd GEN FLIR is a variable power sighting system ranging from 3 or 6 power (wide field of view) for target acquisition and 13, 25 or 50 power (narrow field of view) for engaging targets at appropriate range." By contrast, seen from the Russian end, the numbers look pretty grim in comparison. The ESSA sight (with Catherine FC IR camera) acquisition magnification numbers aren't so bad, 3 or 12 power WFOV, but only 24 power NFOV. Thus, in 2003, the M1A2 had just over twice the max available magnification of the T-90S now. The MRT (Mean Resolvable Temperature) for this unit is 2 deg C. Still looking for the numbers for the M1A2 SEP V2. I strongly suspect they'll be better in the MRT department than the ESSA. This is, I think, a grog wargame forum like ours, and concerns either something out or something being worked. There is no game here, so I FERVENTLY HOPE I won't get into trouble, and it probably is something like the old PE Development Group I used to participate in. This link is directly pertinent to this discussion because it has actual FLIR imagery and operator experience from Bradley and M1A2 users. One of the first remarks is instructive. It talks about seeing people in the open desert with the FLIR out to 2 km! The thread also talks about the different ways the operator can adjust controls to get the best possible performance from the system. It goes way past White Hot/Black Hot. These people appear to be operating at something close to an engineering sim of the thermals being modeled. Looks pretty deep to me. Of particular interest is that it talks about a GEN III FLIR for the Bradley. Elsewhere, I've read that the Abrams and the Bradley now have common FLIR systems. Regards, John Kettler Edited March 5, 2015 by John Kettler 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 It is spurious to compare spotting ability when the units are looking at different targets. The comparison just shows how long a BMP-2 takes to see a Stryker. That's an apple. The other one is how long it takes a Stryker to see a BMP-2. That's an orange. This is true, as I noted. However, in my experience the actual difference in spotting times with different vehicle targets is small. I may do another test tomorrow with different parameters. As thewood pointed out, testing with only the crew is a worse case scenario for the BMP. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) Now that I think about it, we really need to wait for the next patch (or patch beta, our case) to properly test spotting times with passengers in the vehicles. Edited March 5, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 This is true, as I noted. However, in my experience the actual difference in spotting times with different vehicle targets is small. I may do another test tomorrow with different parameters. As thewood pointed out, testing with only the crew is a worse case scenario for the BMP. Although BMP-3M/BMP-2M with gunner/driver only should have rough parity to Stryker with gunner/driver only (at least I'm guessing the thermal sight in this case has similar capabilities, unlike with Bradley / Abrams). You can also get Bradleys with 2-crew only in formations (battalion and company HQ vehicles). BTW, BMP-2M does not have thermals for the commander. It is a day/night panoramic video sight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I assume it does have thermals for the gunner. How do you make that distinction in game. I have found that Russians seem to have so many prototypes and variants that its hard to tell which model BFC chose to model. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 My own experience is somewhat limited therefore anecdotal rather than the result of testing methodology of any sort. Playing the Russians I seem almost entirely unable to spot the US tanks or IFV's with my own T90's before I'm fired on, and often fired on repeatedly. Fair enough, the data sample is small. However, I have had no difficultly spotting infantry with my tanks, at similar ranges to the enemy tanks. It's not, at first glance, what I'd expect. Presumably, I am seeing infantry because it is moving and the enemy vehicles are stationary. To be fair, I have had some exceptions. I've spotted an M1 with a T90 at considerable range. He popped smoke so I assume that I lased him. But it is a rare exception. I can accept that Russian optics and vision technology is sub-par but I am quite surprised at how I spotted their leg units so easily compared to much larger vehicles. I don't even have contacts for the vehicles. This is by no means a complaint about the game, just anecdotal observations. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 BMP-3 basic model, BMP-2M, and T-90A. Funny how those are vehicles with the least capable systems in the russia lineup by a long shot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Playing the Russians I seem almost entirely unable to spot the US tanks or IFV's with my own T90's before I'm fired on, and often fired on repeatedly. Fair enough, the data sample is small. The trick is to engage the M1s at the closest possible range. If both tanks have equally capable crews, at 2000m the M1 will spot your T-90 several seconds first. At 500m it will still spot it first, but the time the T-90 needs for spotting the M1 will be much shorter than at 2000m. Another good tip is to a) attack the Abrams from the flanks, ideally from keyhole positions, and to attack in force. If 3 T-90s meet 1 Abrams, one of the T-90s will probably die, but the surviving 2 are definately going to spot the Abrams' muzzle falsh and engage it. You can also try to degrade the Abrams' optics and sensors with artillery fire before engaging in a tank vs. tank slugging match. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 The trick is to engage the M1s at the closest possible range. If both tanks have equally capable crews, at 2000m the M1 will spot your T-90 several seconds first. At 500m it will still spot it first, but the time the T-90 needs for spotting the M1 will be much shorter than at 2000m. Another good tip is to a) attack the Abrams from the flanks, ideally from keyhole positions, and to attack in force. If 3 T-90s meet 1 Abrams, one of the T-90s will probably die, but the surviving 2 are definately going to spot the Abrams' muzzle falsh and engage it. You can also try to degrade the Abrams' optics and sensors with artillery fire before engaging in a tank vs. tank slugging match. This..is fantastic. I keep operating T90s as I would a Panther in CMBN...clearly here I'm the prey and I need to wrap my head around a very different approach. Thank you! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) Funny how those are vehicles with the least capable systems in the russia lineup by a long shot. Not at all, T-72B3 is inferior to T-90A. BMP-2M has better gunner optics than basic model BMP-3, on par with BMP-3M which is the most proliferated Russian IFV ingame. If i was talking about least capable systems, I would mention the MTLB. Cheers to Vanir for doing the maths. TI on gunner position on Stryker should be at least on par with gunner position in BMP-2M and anything with the same gunsight. We can see that its slightly off there. Should be more ties, and less of a lean infavour of the Stryker imo. Edited March 5, 2015 by Stagler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 This..is fantastic. I keep operating T90s as I would a Panther in CMBN...clearly here I'm the prey and I need to wrap my head around a very different approach. Thank you! When fighting M1A2s, you should use your T-90s in the same manner as you would use your M4 Shermans when fighting Tiger I tanks. Another tip: dont try to frontally penetrate the Abrams' frontal turret armor at more than 500 meteres. I dont have any hard data available, but in my experience the best thing you will get at more than 500 meteres is a partial penbetration. At 1000m you probally wont do any damgage at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMS Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 AI controlled vehicles and infantry units should more often shoot at question marks, I think. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 When fighting M1A2s, you should use your T-90s in the same manner as you would use your M4 Shermans when fighting Tiger I tanks. Another tip: dont try to frontally penetrate the Abrams' frontal turret armor at more than 500 meteres. I dont have any hard data available, but in my experience the best thing you will get at more than 500 meteres is a partial penbetration. At 1000m you probally wont do any damgage at all. Gaaa, that's terrible! I hope the Krisanthema is a bit more effective! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) Gaaa, that's terrible! I hope the Krisanthema is a bit more effective! Ha! Good luck friend. Edited March 5, 2015 by Stagler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 2 full penetrations on right turret slab (hit at 90 degrees twice ) by a T-72B3 at 1200 meters .. it happens but dont count on it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Ha! Good luck friend. Ok, elaborate! Don't leave me hanging like that!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraft Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) I've done a few (~5?) test runs with the Khrizantema and the M1 facing eachother 1km I think 4/5 the M1 spotted first and once the Khrizantema spotted first but got knocked out before the 9M123s could reach the M1 so yeah good luck you might get the drop if the M1 is moving(sideways) and the Khrizantema is hidden but both sides on open ground facing eachother won't end in your favour I'm afraid Edited March 6, 2015 by Kraft 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdwing Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 1km is a bit close for an ATGM, isnt it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.