Black Sea Patch v1.03 Preview

[agusto]

But wouldnt the disembarking troops be killed anyways if an ATGM or RPG round hits the BMPs rear and/or, in a worst case scenario, the BMP blows up? It is better to kill the dismounting troops and save the vehicle than to lose both. It sounds brutal and it is brutal but that is reality. In one case you have 8 dead dismounts and in the other case you have 8 dead dismounts, 3 dead crew and a several hundered thousand dollar vehicle blown to bits.

[Bud Backer]

But wouldnt the disembarking troops be killed anyways if an ATGM or RPG round hits the BMPs rear and/or, in a worst case scenario, the BMP blows up? It is better to kill the dismounting troops and save the vehicle than to lose both. It sounds brutal and it is brutal but that is reality. In one case you have 8 dead dismounts and in the other case you have 8 dead dismounts, 3 dead crew and a several hundered thousand dollar vehicle blown to bits.

 

I thought about this as well. I'm no expert, but what I have seen in tests and demonstrations suggests that the blast from the APS system is not localized to just right at the vehicle, but some distance from it, and would kill people likely 20 or more feet away. So, yes, you may lose the vehicle but save the squad. 

 

I think it's a question of losing money and a few men or saving money and losing more men. If that's the logic, I think valuing human life is not a bad thing.

[agusto]

I thought about this as well. I'm no expert, but what I have seen in tests and demonstrations suggests that the blast from the APS system is not localized to just right at the vehicle, but some distance from it, and would kill people likely 20 or more feet away. So, yes, you may lose the vehicle but save the squad.

 

So it is a matter of what is more deadly to the disembarking infantry - the blast of the ATGM (which certainly fills the air around the vehicle with dozens of nasty little fragments travelling and several hundered meters per second) or the APS. Probably it is a lose-lose situation and not getting hit by a missile in the first place is the best solution.

 

 

I think it's a question of losing money and a few men or saving money and losing more men. If that's the logic, I think valuing human life is not a bad thing.

 

It is just a matter of how expensive the machine is - how many mens lifes are worth a nuclear powered aircraft carrier?

[Bud Backer]

So it is a matter of what is more deadly to the disembarking infantry - the blast of the ATGM (which certainly fills the air around the vehicle with dozens of nasty little fragments travelling and several hundered meters per second) or the APS. Probably it is a lose-lose situation and not getting hit by a missile in the first place is the best solution.

 

 

 

It is just a matter of how expensive the machine is - how many mens lifes are worth a nuclear powered aircraft carrier?

 

That's not a comparable situation. An IFV and an aircraft carrier represent very different impacts on a country's capabilities and finances, and different choices would be made for either. 

 

Clearly the designers of these IFVs chose to not implement 360 degree APS for IFVs even when they could have done so, as demonstrated by them doing it with MBTs. I can't debate with you in an informed manner your argument about ATGM impact fragments being equally lethal. I've not seen the result of that, only APS. It may be that ATGMs will knock out the vehicle with less fragment scatter outside the vehicle itself as the blast from it is directed inward, but the APS system by its very nature has to scatter fragments outside the vehicle.

 

You (and I) may not agree with their choices, but they made them all the same.  

[akd]

http://www.kurganmash.ru/en/machines/bmp3u/protection/arena/

[mirekm61]

 Any news on the patch?

[The Warrior]

I was wondering too.

[MikeyD]

BFC's being extra-special-careful with the patch because it will (theoretically) be the last we touch Black Sea for a while. So if someone on the board complains the blades of grass aren't blowing in the wind quite right that turns into one more thing to investigate before giving the all clear. 

[Muzzleflash1990]

In that case, since I see no change to BMP armour and just need to know to make my mind at ease, is the front armour supposed to be this weak: video ? Sometimes 50.cal hits ammo or something and cause Major Destruction. I ask because it is supposedly protected against 30mm AP at a range of 300m. Even if that is sales crap, is it really that vulnerable to 50.cal at 80m? I mean a couple of shots hitting somewhere weak I can understand, but seems like a lot in this video.

[antaress73]

.50 in the current build use mk211 ammo which can penetrate 50-60mm easily. That will be fixed in the patch. Belt fed .50 will then use normal AP rounds which have a much lower penetration and so the BTR and BMP will be .50 proof from the front. Only the M107 anti-material rifle will use the MK211.

[MikeyD]

I recall Ukrainian soldiers complaining their Soviet-legacy BTR-80s were so thinly armored they couldn't even stop 7.62. The game has actual armor thicknesses, armor quality and angles typed into the engine. If BMP isn't stopping .50 cal SLAP in the game its probably because it won't stop .50 cal SLAP (which might out-penetrate standard NATO 30mm). Catastrophic explosion is a function of the ammo-filled autoloader carousel filling the interior.

[antaress73]

From the sides yes. 8mm or something .. 7.62 AP will penetrate that

[Muzzleflash1990]

.50 in the current build use mk211 ammo which can penetrate 50-60mm easily. That will be fixed in the patch.

 

The patch log only mentions humvee's will have their ammo changed:

 

 

* FIXED: Humvee-mounted US Army .50 caliber machineguns were using Mk. 211 ammunition instead of AP-I.

 

Not sure what the Stryker uses, it was listed only as AP-I. Googling around I found a source which mentioned that M8 API (don't know it that is the right one) has 16mm at 500, and 8mm 1000.

[antaress73]

Hmm si the tripod .50 and .50 on strykers were using the right ammo then.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Same with the CROWS on the tank, the only vehicle .50 cals that were firing the wrong ammo was the HMMWV.  

 

BMP-3 makes major protection compromises to fit the 100 MM, 30 MM, ammo and autoloader, the rifle squad, and the ability to swim.  It isn't a very well armored vehicle, and it is filled with things that explode impartially. 

[SgtHatred]

Will this patch resolve the flying trenches in WEGO multiplayer?

[antaress73]

Same with the CROWS on the tank, the only vehicle .50 cals that were firing the wrong ammo was the HMMWV.

BMP-3 makes major protection compromises to fit the 100 MM, 30 MM, ammo and autoloader, the rifle squad, and the ability to swim. It isn't a very well armored vehicle, and it is filled with things that explode impartially.

That ability to swim and operational mobility comes at a high price. I'm not sure its Worth it. Bridging equipment does exist and they are sitting ducks while swimming. Better to have stronger armor .

[John Kettler]

After spending an age (brain fog possibly on par with exhausted Komandir didn't help) spent painstakingly going into Target to determine LOS and then Clear Target to continue the dreary process for every single AFV, HMG and infantry squad or fireteam,my kingdom for an LOS tool!

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

Your ability to turn a seemingly effortless brilliant phrase is a marvel to behold! "...things that explode impartially" is grog eloquence at its finest.

antaress73,

During the Russo-Afghan War the muj discovered they could kill the driver of a BTR-60 by putting an AK-47 burst at close range into the wheelwell armor behind which he sat. It wasn't armor steel, but mild steel, you see, and ball ammo would go right through it. This happened enough that the Russians had to install field expedient applique armor to remove that critical vulnerability. Nor was this particularly unusual, for the threat docs of the time said the same use of mild steel for the lower hull sideswas true for the T-62! The reason was that the pragmatic Russians reasoned that the lower hull would typically be masked at combat range, so it made sense to save a small fortune by not using armor plate behind the running gear. As for the price paid for amphibious capability, I believe you misunderstand the operational value. In his Tigers in the Mud, Tiger 1 ace Otto Carius talks about the criticality of a single bridge in his sector, the only one rated for his monster tanks. Had that bridge been lost, the nearest suitable crossing was 60 kilometers away! Obviously we're not talking about the weight of a Tiger 1 here, but the central point is important: If you can only cross via a bridge, there's a serious penalty to be paid, starting with the ease of destroying bridges these days using precision weapons. Defending a river is one thing when there are only a few crossings available, but quite another when, as long as riverbank conditions permit, crossings can be done at will practically anywhere. While theoretically the defender could cover considerable river frontage, this dilutes the defense, which is going to find its river screen simply overwhelmed in one or more locations of the attacker's choosing.

Are these impressively explosive amphibious AFVs vulnerable when crossing? Absolutely. But unless the intent is to quietly slip across the river in conjunction with ostentatious demonstrations elsewhere, the crossing will be made under a hurricane of support fires, and the other armed swimmers will themselves be shooting as well. The BMP-3 and its amphibious fellows, including fire support vehicles, make it possible to take and secure a bridgehead more or less at will, which can then be expanded by the subsequent crossing of the MBTs and other combat and combat support means via pontoon ferries or assault bridging, protected by SAMs, AAA, jammers and things like the TMS-65 throwing out broadband obscurants in prodigious quantities.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited April 24, 2015 by John Kettler

[ChrisND]

 Any news on the patch?

 

Still being worked on. We've got one big issue to fix and test before it can be released.

[antaress73]

Well. Very eloquently said John.. Lots of river in Russia/Ukraine so I guess it make sense

[agusto]

I have another question regarding the the 1.03 patch. What happened to 1.02?

[LukeFF]

I have another question regarding the the 1.03 patch. What happened to 1.02?

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119209-black-sea-patch-v103-preview/#entry1601830

[Stagler]

Still being worked on. We've got one big issue to fix and test before it can be released.

 

Fair enough.

[SgtGold]

Eagerly awaiting the update. My one big issue was Russian\Ukrainian IFV's engaging MBT's at 1.5k+ with their 30MM chain guns instead of their ATGM's. At that range you might as well send flowers for all the good it will do.

[Bud Backer]

Is there an update on the patch timeline? I totally understand if it's not ready, just curious where you're at.

Once again my thanks for all the hard work.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Bud_B