BTR

The short answer is no, BMP-3 is better armored by comparison then BMP-2. That mainly applies to the frontal projection though, and modern weapons probably wouldn't care under 500 or so meters anyways. In terms of official statements, I would be very careful what to read from 2010-2011. Basically, the MO had to justify not purchasing BMP-3's somehow, so they released stuff like you've posted all over the web. Actual BMP-3 performance in Chechen conflicts was adequate for a glass-cannon that it is.

Well, certainly M1A2 awareness is a tough stone to swallow, but the capability is there nonetheless.

I wasn't debating overmatch as an occurrence, I was skeptical of projectile power to KO another tank afterwards. Especially at 1000+ m. Under 400m, I seem to be getting almost 100% 2x Combo having a T-90AM vs M1A2's. Haven't got a 3x Combo yet :). Not sure how representative of M1A2 side armor this is, but I'll try the same test in reverse.

In my tests BMP-3s were very apt at taking M1A2s out. From around 300m hull sides and turret back are squishy enough for A/C fire.

A car engine block certainly wouldn't be much of an obstacle for .50 or any APFSDS but 2.5m LoS of varied geometry and spacing, even if aluminum, would be sufficient to disintegrate a portion of the sabot. For ERA, I specifically mentioned Relikt because the explosive is configured to ignite in both directions. All of this is not comparable to RHA in resistance, but then modern glacis are rarely beyond 700-800mm LoS, while the while engine compartments are 2000+. I don't know if it would be enough to completely disintegrate the sabot, but conserving enough KE for the second impact penetrating a third Relikt array seems unlikely.

3980m;day, clear weather; Condition is rested Crew is regularTypes of armor engaged> M1A2, T-64BM, BM Bulat, T-64BV all without APSResult: whichever tank was the first target got engaged by BMP-2M using Kornet within the first 15-20 seconds of identification 100% of the time. I ran 10 tests yesterday.

From what I can see, that APFSDS impacted the engine compartment, which means it went through around 3.7m LOS of varied strength metals, exited through an ERA panel and managed to conserve enough KE to breach another Relikt Array. Knowing that Sabots mostly disintegrate upon impact with metals, I'd say this is a very optimistic representation on one.

The article assumes T-90A glacis composition and LoS thickness of a late T-72A.The article assumes T-90A turret passive armor array composition is the same as on T-72B. The article claims that side panels are not ERA.The article claims that cardboard casing is more dangerous and explosive then brass one, when in fact it is in reverse. There are other bits and bobs, but according to the text you gave us T-72B '89 is better armored then T-90A '05.

Worked for me for 4K range test. Engaged and destroyed two separate targets in one turn.

Area fire for the BMP-3 over BMP-2 just seems worth the extra points for me. 100mm AB makes all the difference in forests and towns.

Right, of course. How can you assume then, then what was presented isn't a yearly contract for example, and in fact around 60K 3BM60 rounds were procured on a yearly basis starting 2013? Same BS, different opinion spectrum, and just as valid if we really concentrate on what information we have available.

2013 RUB to USD was 31:1, so in fact if we take April, the total amount of this contract would have been 57.745.277,06 USD. Even if we take your "otkat" scenario equaling 3BM60 to M829A3, that is around 60K rounds. Have a go at it yourself. If we take a much more historically accurate average of Russian equipment being cheaper, then even more rounds are in question. Therefore, it is very plausible to have tank battalions supplied uniquely with Svinets rounds.

Well, there is this: Which is a UGV, but still demonstrates adaptability.

Just procurement notes for Svinets-2 rounds.

Alright, it'll take a little more time to proofread and edit parts 7 and 8, but I think we're just about done here . As I've mentioned before, we've take a step back, re-evaluated some parts of our earlier research and corrected grammar to the best of our abilities. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zo_Rzin4FJPNN6u3n8UtppLqRivsdZgr9O6NVhsRpX4/edit#

Latest rounds are available to Russian side in CMBS already. T-80's in their variants are in service with Russian and Ukraine.

Not correct. Discounting pre-production and prototyping every major service upgrade (A, B), has had two known glacis reconfigurations within its production life. That is excluding ERA and add-on external plates. 23 years is aggregate domestic service life of the T-90 lineup, both ob. 188 and ob. 188A1. It has been some time since 1992 already. PS, the picture above is inaccurate, as top turret clearly has ERA on the T-90MS.

Well, T-90A is a deeply improved T-72 obr. 1979, that doesn't exactly take us anywhere. If we consider the past 100 years of armor development in Russia and specifically last 60 of UVZ's production, even year-to-year batches can have improved protection in what seems to be the same layout. T-72 has had 6 known glacis layout iterations over the course of its 36 years of service doubling KE and CE resistance. That's a variant and ~30mm KE every 6 years. T-90's have been in service for 23. To assume capabilities remained still even for the past 15-10 years is a big leap.

On a personal level, I feel it isn't perhaps direct glacis or frontal turret protection that is lacking, its something else. Like in my tests I got ammo explosions through weapon mounts, frontal tracks, side glacis etc. Looking at more protected areas might not be the best approach. I think evaluating internal layout, HEAT protection, ERA as well as hitbhoxes might be a better place to start.

Haven't tested this yet, but theoretical catastrophic explosion chance for combat loaded (A/L only) T-64/T-80 series should be higher then for T-72 series. Loader mechanism places propellant charges vertically, almost doubling the whole setup in height.

As I said above though, most evidence points to 6MA being non-standard equipment that is no longer procured.

Sorry I had to cut the quote. 1) The compromise isn't as necessary from where we stand since squads can be split. Besides, CM:A showed us that it can be handled differently. 2) LPR is more relevant to artillery fire mission then one would think. Accurate ranges and all. Having it abstracted is alright I suppose, but BF doesn't take need to take the easy route here :). Shame that ground radars were passed in-game. They are quite an integral part of any relevant Russian fighting force as I hope we have demonstrated. 3) Just a suggestion. Besides, not everything here is for BF, some things, as you correctly pointed out, are for scenario makers. 4) Yeah, I see some variation in the command structure and other bits and bobs. Even the image you gave isn't replicated fully in CM:BS though. 5) Fair point, but we see that HQ and two tech recon squads which don't have 1K119 can be included. They would have a lot more sense once reconnaissance stations are in-game, but they can be in there now anyways. 6) Even low-level UAV's are split into their own company by TOE's as of now. Unless we are talking about special forces which aren't really in play in CM. I also have no idea how the VDV handle their things. 7) I would ask to hold bug reports for now. The full doc isn't complete and completely proofread as of yet. It is only a 4K, 10 page document as of now anyways . We ideally want to submit it to the devs in a complete and pretty state.

It's more of a cooperation between Wieking, Husker and I, although Haiduk's input is always appreciated . Yeah, LPR's are, gracefully translated, laser range-finding binoculars, I'm not sure why I used "designator" per say. Ukrainian OOB's are a bit of a mystery, CM ones appear to be a variation on CM:A ones, which isn't necessarily accurate, but then I don't really know much about them in their current state either. To be fair about ELINT, this stuff is so over-classified and fairly removed from direct battle, that I do not see a reason for its inclusion. Some scenarios start with "general locations" of possible enemy contact, this is fairly close to ELINT results I think.

Correction - 4 round clips for 2B9. In any case, we will take time to polish what information we have now (10 vs 11 IFV's/ MG teams for platoon command etc). We will also try to tackle miscellaneous smaller formations we have left out (sniper squads and so on).

Yeah, Alexander "Surgeon" Zaldostanov. He's the leader of a largest biker gang in Russia (and EU now). A fairly public person, public enough to be in the sanctions list anyway.