Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ivanov

BMP-3 on the firing range

Recommended Posts

Maybe I'm mistaken but it appeared they edited the 30mm firing to show the only two rounds that hit the target. Dispersion seemed pretty high but I don't know the range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2017 at 6:05 AM, The Steppenwulf said:

I'd like to see some even simpler features such as engine audio file cut out when tanks are on hide command - reflecting lower sound signature!

Would a tank have a lower tank signature?  I don’t expect they would turn off the engine so yes it would just be idling, but how quiet is an idling tank?  Think we need a professional to chime in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sburke said:

Would a tank have a lower tank signature?  I don’t expect they would turn off the engine so yes it would just be idling, but how quiet is an idling tank?  Think we need a professional to chime in. 

Tanks used in defensive situations (e.g. hull down, ambush positions) are almost certain to cut their engines. Gas is not unlimited. Back up electrical supply (APU) allows the vehicle's system to operate for reasonable periods of time without recharge. 

It's not just sound that can give a tank away, it's also the infrared heat signature provided from a hot running engine. A cold engine being much harder to spot. The question of how long to cool for the benefit to arise, are perhaps reasons why it probably isn't modelled. Nevertheless consider a player wishing to maintain armour in ambush from the start of the scenario and the engine therefore off. Clearly this should confer a "hide advantage" in this particular circumstance - from distant as well as close visual "spotters".

A benefit from zero sound signature probably only confer advantage against fairly local infantry on foot, since a force's own vehicles or aircraft own engine sounds will drown out enemy vehicles engine sound anyhow. It's these differentials that may explain why (I suspect) it hasn't been modelled but clearly there are some parameters where it could be applicable and simulated in the current CM engine as a new feature.  

Edited by The Steppenwulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leopard 2 is a notoriously loud tank. The Swiss received so many civilian complaints about the engine roar reverberating off the hillsides that they retro-fitted a huge muffler system onto the back end. German tank crewe switched from traditional berets to caps with ear flaps because of the oppressive interior noise. Abrams' low sound signature gets bragged about so much that we're all tired of hearing about it ;).

Oh, and I believe the Army pulled the plug on Boston Dynamics robot mule program due to sound signature issues. It was rather like infantry going on patrol accompanied by a riding lawnmower.

Edited by MikeyD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Abrams' low sound signature gets bragged about so much that we're all tired of hearing about it

Conversely its heat signature is terrible due to the fact that it's a gas turbine engine and they run twice as hot as diesel. I would conjecture that Eastern Block vehicles, being diesel, have a lower heat signature in this regard, though there are other factors such as ambient temperature that are at play in all these matters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2017 at 5:41 AM, MikeyD said:

Dispersion seemed pretty high but I don't know the range.

Dispersion for 2A72 is actually TEN times higher than M242.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IMHO said:

Dispersion for 2A72 is actually TEN times higher than M242.

It sure looks that way. Do you have any references which show the shot to shot dispersion values?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. No, I wasn't able to find the numbers again within reasonable time :( What I remember are the reasons...
  2. 2A42 dispersion is higher than M242 as the former is gas rather than chain operated.
  3. 2A72 in BMP-3 mount moved away from gas opeation to long recoil thus trading decrease in peak recoil force and weight reduction for signinficant increase in dispersion.
  4.  2A72 in BTR-82A mount stepped away from the original BMP-3 mount where 2A72 is strapped to 2A70. So barrel sway increased significantly increased dispersion even further. An attempt to alleviate the problem was made by further reducing the ROF. I've never seen the numbers on how successful it was.

What I found by quick googling is http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a262492.pdf stating M242 single-shot AP-I practical dispersion at 0.40+ mrads. HEI is stated to be way higher. Factory values for AP-I I saw back then were way lower.

Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×