BMP-3M Mech inf. vs M2 Mech inf. tactics.

[Alexey K]

Recently I've had QB:  2xBMP-3M platoons with some support (engieers, RPO) attacking 2xM2 Bradley platoons. No artillery on both sides.

There was a town divided by river. One bank was mine, other was defended by Americans.

 

I've poked around with infanrty, tried to engage enemy with my IFVs popping from behind houses, etc. Killed few infatnry, got my sniper killed by Javelin. 

But ultimately I've failed to develop any decisive strategy to cross river and get close enought for my infantry organic antitank weapns.

 

Any suggestions on that situation?

 

 

[BTR]

Smoke screens. BMP mounted smokes were designed for offensive use giving you 50-80m of breathing space with 3D6M/3D17 smoke grenades protecting form thermal and visual detection. 

[Alexey K]

Smoke screens. BMP mounted smokes were designed for offensive use giving you 50-80m of breathing space with 3D6M/3D17 smoke grenades protecting form thermal and visual detection. 

 

I've thought about it. BMP has 2 rounds of smoke and it can''t be reloaded. Smoke grenades are thrown 125, forward so I can move safe up to 250 meters. Not enought for my case.

 

Engieers can deploy somke to, aren't they?

[Stagler]

Infantry out and up front, follow the BMP-3M behind by 50 meters. Infantry can spot better (dont know why as they dont have a whapping big thermal sight on their heads), let them see first. Then maneouever your vehicle to engage from either the flank, or when the M2 is firing at the infantry.

As it stands, BMP-3M is more fragile than BMP-2M. Probably because BF surmised that the ammunition inside likes to go bang, as it often does catastrophically when a BMP-3M takes 25mm fire. It is meant to be protected from the front up to 30mm, but it isnt ingame at this time. BMP-2M however doesnt, so I am picking these in favour at the moment.

 

I would go for BMP-2M instead, but the tactics remains the same. Infantry out and upfront, vehicle close behind. Spot then maneouever to engage if possible.

[Alexey K]

Infantry out and up front, follow the BMP-3M behind by 50 meters. Infantry can spot better (dont know why as they dont have a whapping big thermal sight on their heads), let them see first. Then maneouever your vehicle to engage from either the flank, or when the M2 is firing at the infantry.

As it stands, BMP-3M is more fragile than BMP-2M. Probably because BF surmised that the ammunition inside likes to go bang, as it often does catastrophically when a BMP-3M takes 25mm fire. It is meant to be protected from the front up to 30mm, but it isnt ingame at this time. BMP-2M however doesnt, so I am picking these in favour at the moment.

 

I would go for BMP-2M instead, but the tactics remains the same. Infantry out and upfront, vehicle close behind. Spot then maneouever to engage if possible.

Another armouring bug?

 

Thanks for advice

[Apocal]

Infantry can spot better (dont know why as they dont have a whapping big thermal sight on their heads)

 

Because they aren't looking through a soda straw.

[AttorneyAtWar]

I have a hard time believing BMP-3M even with its enhanced armor is going to be "protected" from a Bradleys APFSD 25mm cannon. Maybe protected from a Ukrainian BMP-2's cannon I can see that.

[antaress73]

Bmp-3 with ERA has yellow (good) level of protection against 20-30mm calibers category so maybe. But you lose the smoke grenade launchers .

[Alexey K]

Because they aren't looking through a soda straw.

BMP-3 has panoramic sights.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Its good against Russian type 30 mm which under performs compared to the more advanced 25 mm rounds. 25 mm should penetrate all BMPs.

[Stagler]

BMP-3 has panoramic sights.

 

So does BMP-2M.

 

They both have the same thermal gunner optic also, with variable zoom. Another carryover from CMSF in spotting ability im guessing also...

 

Such 'murican superiority on this forums is truly telling.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Stagler

[Apocal]

BMP-3 has panoramic sights.

 

8 degrees according to this. That is a far cry from the nearly 180 degrees of motion sensitive field of view that the Mark 1 Eyeball enjoys.

[Thewood1]

Again, bring on the video so it can be shown and compared apples to apples...

 

1) who was moving

2) what direction were they facing

3) what was motivation

4) what was overall morale

5) were there infantry nearby in communications

6) what was the ECM level

7) were there drones

8) what was the intelligence level for the scenario

...etc.

 

There about 15 other questions I would go to before questioning the integrity of people building the game.

[kaburke61]

LOL...Stagler...no bias on your part of course!

[Apocal]

Such 'murican superiority on this forums is truly telling.

 

You're gonna have to walk me through how saying "infantry spot better because they have a larger field of view" is "'murican superiority."

[Stagler]

You're gonna have to walk me through how saying "infantry spot better because they have a larger field of view" is "'murican superiority."

 

Seemed a lot like that in CMSF. I did tests with equal skill troops in CMSF in daylight and blufor spotted first always. Now that equipment is peer to peer, blufor still always spots first in daylight.

As I said in other threads, there might be some under the hood modifiers in play.

Essentially what i'm saying is that man for man, I think that US troops are programmed to be better - despite skill/morale/equipment settings. Maybe someone who did the programming can correct me?

 

Correction Alexey - BMP-3M in game does not have panoramic modelled. They chose the model with the dual-thermal/daylight gunsight and commander night IR optic which can swivel 360degrees. However it is not TI capable. The BMP-3M with Bakchka-U turret module does have panoramic sight, or model with additional commander TI panoramic from Berezhok complex.

Vehicle below is BMD-4M, but turret module is the same and available for fitting to BMP-3.

http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/Engineering-Technologies-2010/i-ZjTtgvS/0/O/Part1_0005%20copy.jpg

Vehicle below is BMP-3M with additional spaced armour and Commander TI panoramic.

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/3746/423411f.jpg

 

I did request this for inclusion, but it was after models had been done.

 

Edit: Here is BMP-3M with Bakchka module.

http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/932003/bpictures/Bmp%203ifv.jpg

 

Edited March 4, 2015 by Stagler

[Kraft]

As I said in other threads, there might be some under the hood modifiers in play.

Essentially what i'm saying is that man for man, I think that US troops are programmed to be better - despite skill/morale/equipment settings. Maybe someone who did the programming can correct me?

 

From the "US soldiers act like cowards ingame" thread.

 

The TacAI in Black Sea is the same TacAI in all CM games. And by "same" I mean exactly the same. It is also the same for all nations. We have never, and will never, produce nation specific TacAI.

What this means is that a US unit with x, y, and z stats has the same chance of behavior as a similar sized/armed unit with identical x, y, and z stats in the identical situation. Due to random variability the result might not be the same, but from the simulation's point of view they are identical.

People should also not get too focused on any one specific event and presume that a hand selected solution for it is something that has validity everywhere all the time. What works for one situation doesn't work for others. That is the inherent issue with AI in general, but especially AI that governs complex split second behaviors under extreme circumstances.

Is the TacAI perfect? Certainly not. But we've been honing it for 8 years now and we're very confident that there isn't some obvious flaw with it. Especially because in real life soldiers make bad decisions all the time. Even experienced ones with great amounts of training.

Steve

 

Edited March 4, 2015 by Kraft

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Now that equipment is peer to peer, blufor still always spots first in daylight.

 

Russian thermal optics are still generally somewhere between 1-2 generations behind US hardware on this matter. The US stuff is good to the point where it is "The" optic used for engagement outside of certain circumstances*, while Russian thermals remain a good solid choice for when the light is too low for something else.  Which is to say that technologically speaking there's reasons for the US sensors to be more sensitive.  And as someone pointed out, there's no magic inferior Syrian spotting AI that's somehow still in the system.

 

 

*Besides the obvious "thermal optics are broken" choices, if you've got very hot ground, or very cold targets conventional daylight optics can be good, although in practice the difference between terrain and tank heat radiation is enough to still give a target.  It's also useful when you're looking for certain details like color (such as the panel showing who's OPFOR or not, or if someone is signalling you with colored flares).  In practice though, if we were allowed to use it, we were operating almost entirely in thermal

[Apocal]

Seemed a lot like that in CMSF. I did tests with equal skill troops in CMSF in daylight and blufor spotted first always. Now that equipment is peer to peer, blufor still always spots first in daylight.

As I said in other threads, there might be some under the hood modifiers in play.

Essentially what i'm saying is that man for man, I think that US troops are programmed to be better - despite skill/morale/equipment settings. Maybe someone who did the programming can correct me?

 

There aren't under the hood national modifiers at play; the Americans in CMSF had explicitly better gear including more binos, ACOGs, magnified sights on the SAWs, I think the light- and medium weight thermal sights on M240s and -- if you took it along -- the Javelin's CLU. The latter was especially egregious, since infantry were getting "heads-up" spotting bonuses combined with thermal and magnification bonuses at the same time. With the Marines, it was even more lopsided since the Javelin gunner would sometimes swap to his rifle (and lose the spotting bonus) but every Marine rifleman carried an ACOG that he used more or less continuously.

 

And the equipment still isn't peer to peer in CMBS, since each individual soldier is a spotting factor and a lot of the Russian dudes aren't rocking magnified sights. Whereas on the other side of the aisle I think half the American rifle squad gets a magnified daylight optic of some sort: squad and team leaders with three ACOGs, squad marksman with ACOG or the M110's 3-10X Leupold scope and M25 gunners with all-the-time 4x thermal sights. The Russian rifle squad just doesn't compare.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Apocal

[akd]

Seemed a lot like that in CMSF. I did tests with equal skill troops in CMSF in daylight and blufor spotted first always. Now that equipment is peer to peer, blufor still always spots first in daylight.

As I said in other threads, there might be some under the hood modifiers in play.

Essentially what i'm saying is that man for man, I think that US troops are programmed to be better - despite skill/morale/equipment settings. Maybe someone who did the programming can correct me?

 

 

You are wrong.  Plus, I doubt you have done serious spotting testing in game.  It is not fun, and most give up long before good data is obtained.  When it comes to spotting, anecdotes will be rejected in drawing conclusions about probability.  The spotting system has too much in-built variability, and when combined with typical observer bias, makes pursuing anecdote-based spotting probability bugs totally futile.

[Thewood1]

Hey, I would settle for an anecdote with a real example of it happening.

[Stagler]

Well there you go then.

 

Russian thermal optics are still generally somewhere between 1-2 generations behind US hardware on this matter. The US stuff is good to the point where it is "The" optic used for engagement outside of certain circumstances*, while Russian thermals remain a good solid choice for when the light is too low for something else.  Which is to say that technologically speaking there's reasons for the US sensors to be more sensitive.  And as someone pointed out, there's no magic inferior Syrian spotting AI that's somehow still in the system.

 

 

*Besides the obvious "thermal optics are broken" choices, if you've got very hot ground, or very cold targets conventional daylight optics can be good, although in practice the difference between terrain and tank heat radiation is enough to still give a target.  It's also useful when you're looking for certain details like color (such as the panel showing who's OPFOR or not, or if someone is signalling you with colored flares).  In practice though, if we were allowed to use it, we were operating almost entirely in thermal

 

 

Ha not really.TI sight on T-72B3 (the only system that is actually in service with TI sights in the game at this time), gunner sight protocol is TI, then day optic, then back up gun sight (which is basically a view port). Maybe 1 or 2 generations behind 10 years ago but not now. Thales Catherine-FC TI imager (I know doesn't have the same level of zoom than that of M1 imager), should be just as good at spotting at 1km away as an M1, further then yes there is the case for M1 better at spotting, however examples I have used have been at 500m.

Basically, all Russian TI is derived from this system - besides that on early T-80U which isn't in game. All Russian TI should have the same spotting capabilities, at the same ranges.

[Nerdwing]

Wait.... what generation of TI are we at currently?

 

I thought the most modern stuff was still just 2nd generation.  Are we at third now?  Or fourth?

 

I always figured stuff like the M1A1's thermal sight to be first generation.  Gulf-War/Cold War era stuff.   Its just like the damn "Whats a 5th Generation Fighter?" debate, I guess

Edited March 5, 2015 by Nerdwing

[Alexey K]

Its good against Russian type 30 mm which under performs compared to the more advanced 25 mm rounds. 25 mm should penetrate all BMPs.

 

I wonder, why M242 armour penetration is better than 2A72. According to wiki fo AP round both have equal muzzle velocity (1.100 m/s). It is quality of rounds only or something else?

[Thewood1]

Still no in game examples of how crippling this is.