Jump to content

Managing BMPs


Recommended Posts

I lost four BMPs to a Tunguska last mission over a series of turns. Despite having neighboring BMPs repeatedly obliterated by the creature over a series of turns, and despite restriction of commands to slow and short movements followed by pauses, they kept getting knocked out by the thing. Area fire eventually forced it to retreat. 

How can I get the BMPs to spot better? If I had a recon team with eyes on a Tunguska, and a force with complete C2 linkages, would my BMPs have spotted the creature eventually? 

Thought I'd ask here to see what information I could get before testing this out myself by more forcefully advancing my recon teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you're putting BMPs in front of anything larger than a 7.62mm machine gun, you're doing it wrong.  If they're spotted, they're easily killed or incapacitated.

Despite the name, IFVs are eggshell-fragile against just about any mounted weapon.  Considering that the Tunguska is designed to spray out AP shells like a firehose, they are the last thing you want to expose any vehicle to. Even a tank can come away with its sensors wrecked.

If one of those beasts is positioned to spot as you move your large rumbling vehicles into the open, it will kill them before you see it. Probably your best bet is to dismount a foot team and have it creep forward to put eyes on the monster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Pericles said:

How can I get the BMPs to spot better? If I had a recon team with eyes on a Tunguska, and a force with complete C2 linkages, would my BMPs have spotted the creature eventually? 

Yes, having a team in C2 spot it would help. So would having someone in the command chair of the BMP. As would opening up the BMP, which also requires someone be in that chair too.

Having said that those Tunguskas are nasty business. They are very powerful in a recent game I lost a significant number of tanks to them. I wonder if they are being used in a way that matches reality. I'm am suspicious that we are using them in ways that would never be done in RL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Holman said:

Considering that the Tunguska is designed to spray out AP shells like a firehose, they are the last thing you want to expose any vehicle to

Hah! I like it.

12 minutes ago, IanL said:

I'm am suspicious that we are using them in ways that would never be done in RL

Apparently Russia only has some 250-odd complexes, and seeing that they're an integral part of their IADS (pun intended), I agree with you here.  Their direct fire capacity is likely only "supposed" to be used in self-defence.  Though it's worth noting the ZSU-23-4 Afghanskii modified for antipersonnel uses in Afghanistan, or straight Shilkas being used as such weapons in Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

Though it's worth noting the ZSU-23-4 Afghanskii modified for antipersonnel uses in Afghanistan, or straight Shilkas being used as such weapons in Syria.

These vehicles are no longer SPAAGs though (the radar is removed as a matter of course), IMHO they are the origin of the 'Terminator' Tank Support Vehicle concept.....Modern SPAAGs are a bit too pricey and fragile for use as infantry support, a couple of rounds through the radar/comms and their utility for their primary role is seriously degraded.

But damn, don't Tunguskas look good when they cut loose!  ;)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your BMPs are taking fire from anything that can kill them, you've made a mistake. In the ww2 titles, you use mortars to take out AT guns before exposing your tanks, the same applies here. Use firepower to shut down ATGMs and keep your IFVs out of the AT weapons organic to an infantry squad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this particular mission you are tasked with eliminating a platoon of Tunguskas and then destroying a bridge with CAS.

To accomplish the task of Tunguska neutralization, you have two mechanized companies (w/ BMPs), one on-map mortar attachment (3x 88 mm), and no tanks. 

The map is open with multiple large, wide hills and little forest cover. Therefore, destroying a single Tunguska with a RPG is fortunate. Destroying a platoon of Tunguskas with RPGs is impossible without autistic attention to detail (something I do not have) and turn-by-turn game savings and reloading. 

Since mortars cannot be relied upon to destroy single targets in this game (I targeted a Tunguska with all 3 mortars (medium - maximum) and patiently waited as all rounds missed), you are left with only one other option: the BMPs' 30 mms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-5-7 at 11:47 AM, IanL said:

Yes, having a team in C2 spot it would help. So would having someone in the command chair of the BMP. As would opening up the BMP, which also requires someone be in that chair too.

Having said that those Tunguskas are nasty business. They are very powerful in a recent game I lost a significant number of tanks to them. I wonder if they are being used in a way that matches reality. I'm am suspicious that we are using them in ways that would never be done in RL. 

@Haiduk and others - this is a good question for you!

There's a large number of Tunguska and tanks in the donbass AO. Considering UKR weakness in ATGMs, have UKR forces used Tunguskas like we often do in CMBS? Or the separatists? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kinophile said:

@Haiduk and others - this is a good question for you!

There's a large number of Tunguska and tanks in the donbass AO. Considering UKR weakness in ATGMs, have UKR forces used Tunguskas like we often do in CMBS? Or the separatists? 

Never. Tunguskas only maintain close rear AA defense, though two vehicles of 128th mountain brigade were lost in Debaltsevo battle from enemy artillery fire.

I know, that now separate batteries or battalions of ZSU-23-4 are establishing. Its functions - to hold possible breakthrough of enemy light armor and infantry until main forces, moved to rear due to Minsk aggreements, would not arrive. Only volunterrs are enlisting there, because in case of large scale enemy offensive, that will their last stand... Episodical usage of ZSU-23-4 have proved its effectiveness.

Separatists havn't Tunguskas. Both sides are using ZU-23-2 - both towed and mobile versions. 

Edited by Haiduk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-5-9 at 10:39 AM, Haiduk said:

Never. Tunguskas only maintain close rear AA defense, though two vehicles of 128th mountain brigade were lost in Debaltsevo battle from enemy artillery fire.

I know, that now separate batteries or battalions of ZSU-23-4 are establishing. Its functions - to hold possible breakthrough of enemy light armor and infantry until main forces, moved to rear due to Minsk aggreements, would not arrive. Only volunterrs are enlisting there, because in case of large scale enemy offensive, that will their last stand... Episodical usage of ZSU-23-4 have proved its effectiveness.

Separatists havn't Tunguskas. Both sides are using ZU-23-2 - both towed and mobile versions. 

Interesting! I'm honestly surprised. I guess the strategic AA value of a Tunguska outweighs it's tactical use v.  T72/90.

Still, Tu in ambush would be very WW2, bringing 88s to mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kinophile said:

I guess the strategic AA value of a Tunguska outweighs it's tactical use v.  T72/90.

Hm... How Tunguska in real world can be useful against T-72 ? Just for sights damaging. Or ambush in back or side акщь short range (phantastic version). Of course can be exceptions, but like in US army, Ukrainian and Russian also has own combat field manuals, when clearly written, where every unit (infantry, ATGM, AA, etc) must be deployed on battlefield. And troops fire support isn't primary Tunguska's task.

As a rule each position has ZU-23. It uses often also against tanks - the rain of 23 mm shells tears down K-1 ERA containers from the hull and tank turns out vulnerable for PRG and SPG ammunition. And enemy tank commander forced to decide - to continue battle w/o ERA on front hull or move back. This tactic successfully was using in 2014-2015 campaign. Also shelling with AA gun has psyhological effect. Enemy unexperienced crews were often retreating after dozen boom-boom-boom in the hull or turret.

Edited by Haiduk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still intrigued by these ZSU-23-4 'Fire-Brigades' you mentioned earlier, do you have any more information on these vehicles?

I'd really like to see these (& maybe even Terminators) in future CM:BS &/or CM:SF II releases.....They'd be useful in so many scenarios from Soviet Afghanistan through Syria to the Ukraine (& beyond if NATO are to be believed). 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 8:20 AM, Pericles said:

In this particular mission you are tasked with eliminating a platoon of Tunguskas and then destroying a bridge with CAS.

To accomplish the task of Tunguska neutralization, you have two mechanized companies (w/ BMPs), one on-map mortar attachment (3x 88 mm), and no tanks. 

The map is open with multiple large, wide hills and little forest cover. Therefore, destroying a single Tunguska with a RPG is fortunate. Destroying a platoon of Tunguskas with RPGs is impossible without autistic attention to detail (something I do not have) and turn-by-turn game savings and reloading. 

Since mortars cannot be relied upon to destroy single targets in this game (I targeted a Tunguska with all 3 mortars (medium - maximum) and patiently waited as all rounds missed), you are left with only one other option: the BMPs' 30 mms. 

Don't feel bad.

I know the mission you are talking about and you are hard pressed to do anything else but try it at times.

I knew better, but I did as you and had one unit I tried to take out with 6 bmp's. My plan was to have all 6 crest a ridge and take the beast on all at once. Knowing I would lose a few units.

3 units from the front and 3 from a flanking position. All was perfect except three units managed to take longer than expected to cross the last few yards of terrain.

The Tunguska cut down the first three units to crest, then had time before taking on the next three.

Needles to say, I created a nice smoke screen on the ridge line with the 6 burning hulks.

 

Still won the scenario, and had been successful with taking out other units with far less bmp's using similar tactic. But that one minute event will stick with me forever as to why BMP's should not be used for such task. (In RL anyway, as for the game, My troops love to sacrifice their blood to gain me victory).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'm still intrigued by these ZSU-23-4 'Fire-Brigades' you mentioned earlier, do you have any more information on these vehicles?

I'd really like to see these (& maybe even Terminators) in future CM:BS &/or CM:SF II releases.....They'd be useful in so many scenarios from Soviet Afghanistan through Syria to the Ukraine (& beyond if NATO are to be believed). 

There is too few info about its. These vehicles have many problems. Aftrer its were mathballed, their technical conditions now very bad. Many spare parts are abscent and serching by civil volunteers in many places or even produces in small private companies. Also I heard that some Shilkas in assault versions have additional MG on turret top and even ERA (very strange solution if this true - light armor just will crack after K-1 activation or special light ERA Nozh-L mounted, but this close to phantastic). Radars faulty, mounted radio equipment also mostly doesn't work.

Here a video of combat usage one of these special Shilka units. Looks like December 2016 - January 2017. On first video just seen flame of Shilka shooting, on second video you can see how vehicle is passing near operator

 

 

 

 

Edited by Haiduk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 5/7/2017 at 8:47 AM, IanL said:

I wonder if they are being used in a way that matches reality. I'm am suspicious that we are using them in ways that would never be done in RL.

I've argued this a long time ago. 

A. The game designers modeled a version of tunguska that never went into production. It was from an arms show in 2011, intended to entice export orders. Although it may never happen, the first order of business to bring more realism to the system would be for the game designers to remove the FLIR ability in the game, which would eliminate players abusing it in ground combat at night. This is NOT a "M-1 w/30mm cannons"!

B. Less than 300 of these went into service in the Russian armed forces. They are designed to protect "high value targets" at the regimental level and above. NOT ground attack weapons on the battlefield, as they are frequently exploited for in the game. In Chechnya, ZSU-23-4's were used against ground targets (especially urban areas). However...6500 of them were produced. Far more widespread, so their appearance at battalion level and lower (as in this game) makes much more sense. And...at that time(1994) they had been replaced as frontline AA...so their use against ground targets made sense considering they were now "extra equipment". 

Yes...this is a pet peeve of mine. Sorta like if the game allowed the US players to buy MLRS...and then use them in "direct fire mode" to obliterate large buildings with a single rocket. Could it be done(IRL)? Yes. Would it ever happen? No!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Muzzleflash1990 said:

not a concept vehicle, they are ready for, and being used in, combat, but they didn't (haven't) built many either.

Thanks, ...but I knew what the vehicle was. I assumed most of the readers here would too. 

The Russian military has ~15 according to sources. Yes...they have been used in combat. Only 15 tells me they were "experimenting" and for whatever reason, never built more.

Hell...even Azerbaijan has more than Russia(18)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. They are listed as having about a dozen.

It was actually listed as first being used by the Soviets in Afghanistan.

The real question (IMO) is...why didn't they build more? Budget issues notwithstanding, it is not a grossly expensive system. No expensive FLIR or radars. Doesn't require a large crew to operate. Although it has been sold/given as trade to several countries, it doesn't seem to be something the Russian arms industry has had much success in selling. I find the fact that China never bought even one to test...and maybe "clone" to be interesting. They tend to buy "everything" unusual/new on the market to see if they should build their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...