A strange result in a close range engagement between an M1A2 and a BMP

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I had something very odd happen today. An M1A2 (veteran crew) encountered a BMP-2 at very close range (15 meters) in a wooded area and d engaged the target with the vehicle machine guns only despite having plenty of ammunition on board. The way this happened was I suspected an enemy AFV was near a wooded area on my flank. Being unsure of the exact nature of the threat I moved the nearest tank to investigate and dispose of the threat as I believed it to be a small enemy force.

What I encountered was a BMP  It so happened that the range of this engagement was extremely short about 30 meters. What I expected was that the M1A2 would engage with the main gun and swiftly dispose of the BMP. This did not happen. My tank insisted on engaging the target with hull and co-ax machine guns even though there was plenty of main gun ammunition on board. Even more oddly the crew were veterans!

I then tried giving the tank a target order and it still would not engage with the main gun. This cannot be right and appears extremely unrealistic. One or two main gun rounds would have knocked that BMP out in short order. I have never seen this happen before. It seems to me that there must be a bug here.

[A Canadian Cat]

Just to be sure what was the status of your tanks main gun? Could if have been previously disabled? 

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

Looks like self-preservation. At that range the M1 crew was no doubt terrified of the BMP's reputation for catastrophic explosion.

[Kinophile]

Yup, page 44 pof the BS manual - thick smoke from artillery missions will not block thermals.

[Kinophile]

Woops

Edited October 12, 2015 by kinophile

[gnarly]

@kinophile, unless I am mistaken, I think you are trying to post in this (your) thread??

 

 

 

 

[Kinophile]

Durrr.

Fixed.

Thanks Gnarly, too many tabs at once!

[womble]

If two MGs were firing, it has to be the the Co-ax and one of the MGs that can be mounted on the top of the turret (modern MBTs tend not to have bow guns), which gives a bunch of options as to what is actually going on and how that compares to what the TacAI might expect to be happening.

I'd've thought the vehicle would have to be unbuttoned to have the loader pop up and use his M240, and it seems more likely the commander would either be using (from within the protection of the armour) the .50cal fitted to the commander's weapons station, or a weapon mounted in a CROWS if fitted. The CROWS can also have a .50cal, and if either that's so, or there's no CROWS, I'd expect the SLAP from the M2 to chew holes in the BMP. If the CROWS has a smaller-calibre option (M240 or 249), not so much

I wonder whether the TacAI is expecting .50cal SLAP ammo to be used and therefore considers engaging light armour with the MGs adequate, when in fact either the Abrams isn't carrying any SLAP, or there's a CROWS and it's got a weapon that can't fire it.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Just to be sure what was the status of your tanks main gun? Could if have been previously disabled?

 

Main gun was i good condition. In fact the tank had only arrived as reinforcements a few minutes earlier

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Yup, page 44 pof the BS manual - thick smoke from artillery missions will not block thermals.

No smoke of any kind in the area abd weather conditions were good

[LUCASWILLEN05]

If two MGs were firing, it has to be the the Co-ax and one of the MGs that can be mounted on the top of the turret (modern MBTs tend not to have bow guns), which gives a bunch of options as to what is actually going on and how that compares to what the TacAI might expect to be happening.

I'd've thought the vehicle would have to be unbuttoned to have the loader pop up and use his M240, and it seems more likely the commander would either be using (from within the protection of the armour) the .50cal fitted to the commander's weapons station, or a weapon mounted in a CROWS if fitted. The CROWS can also have a .50cal, and if either that's so, or there's no CROWS, I'd expect the SLAP from the M2 to chew holes in the BMP. If the CROWS has a smaller-calibre option (M240 or 249), not so much

I wonder whether the TacAI is expecting .50cal SLAP ammo to be used and therefore considers engaging light armour with the MGs adequate, when in fact either the Abrams isn't carrying any SLAP, or there's a CROWS and it's got a weapon that can't fire it.

It might have actually been the turret machiegun firing.

If the TAC AI does in fact consider a BMP to be light armour and considers machineguns adequate for engaging that kind of target that might explain why this apparent bug occurs. However, in CMSF I have engaged BMPs at close range on occasion and have observbd the tank destroy them ih the main gun which seems like a reasonable outcome.  Similarly in Red Thunder and Normandy. It seems strange that the same did not happen this time However, on previus occasions, certainly prior to Game Engine 3 the main gun was used as expected. Very strange.

[womble]

There are probably 2 turret MGs, it'd be good if you could confirm which was firing.

SLAP isn't just "machineguns", it's nasty stuff. If you can confirm that the turret MG is firing, and whether the tank is actually carrying Saboted Light Armour Piercing ammo, and whether the turret MG is capable of firing the round (i.e. is .50cal), that'd help begin to determine what's going on. If what's actually being fired should be penetrating and isn't, that's a different problem to the TacAI choosing a weapon that it thinks can penetrate when in fact the unit has a different system fitted, which is, in turn, different to the TacAI simply choosing a weapon system that's ineffective because of some blanket "not a tank: gets machinegunned" directive.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I was gaming the Rolling Thunder scenario. The tank in question belonged to Team Blue Steel 3 for which supply is marked as "adequete. Looking at what this means in combat terms we seem to be looking at

APFSDS 18

120mm Multi 18

50 cal AP 1k

7.62mm 11K

Given that the platoon in questin had not yet been engaged ammunition stocks were plentiful and one round from the main gun would probably have been enough. As it turned out the vehicle machinegun fire was completely ineffective at poin plan range. Very strange. It would be interesting if we could reproduce similar results under similar circumstances (in and very close to a wooded area at ranges of 50meters down to 15 meters with a veteran tank crew (it must have been the 2nd MBT if 3rd Platoon C Company in the Rolling Thunder scenario that was involved in this specific incident.

I just don't see why a main gun round was not used under these conditions

 

[c3k]

Agreed: a main gun round would seem to be the best choice. However...

1) Crew experience: if low, may've picked the "wrong" weapon

2) Crew morale: if low, may've picked the "wrong" weapon

3) TacAI: it may have a bit more variability in behavior than you'd like. It may just be that this is an outlier which is part of the "cool factor" where you never really know what will happen. In this (possibly rare) case, you got bit. In other cases, it just adds that element of individual choice which keeps the game from seeming too robotic

4) The weapon choice was correct: at those ranges and with obstructions in the way, a HEAT round would be crazy to fire. I'm not sure if the minimum arming distance is coded. I also don't know if the TacAI assesses self-created damage from firing too close (or if that's coded). Perhaps firing a HEAT round at 15m is not "smart"? An AP round would be equally inappropriate at that range, that environment, and that target?

5) This is a bug.

6) Of the normal 3 MG's an M1 has (coax, loader's, TC's), only the TC's is a .50. If that was one of the ones firing, perhaps it has killed the BMP, but due to the "death clock" and fog of war, you're just unaware of the damage it caused?

Ken

[LUCASWILLEN05]

The BMP was never knocked out at all. It pulled back, pursued by the tank which had a veteran and well motivated crew. Such a odd result which is why I think a bug is likely, although options 3 and 4 could be possibilities. It may well be that I have encountered a rare phenomenon but it is hard to explain or justify in real world circumstances. Th crew happily blazed away with machinegun fire but with little or no effect

[womble]

18 rounds of APFSDS is "enough to fight other tanks with". I'm not surprised the TC chose not to waste a silver bullet on a BMP if he thought his MGs could do the job. Similarly, the GP rounds aren't "plentiful" at 18-count, either: consider, that's about half the loadout of a typical WW2 tank, and the Abrams is supposed to be sticking around, largely invulnerable. Those HE rounds are for dislodging crunchies from behind cover, or flattening buildings, not dealing with pesky light armour.

AIUI, if the TC's Ma Deuce was firing SLAP (does all .50cal AP count as SLAP, or is that special round specifically noted?), it should have done the job (since it seems generally accepted that SLAP can punch the side armour of some MBTs !! Yeah, I know, but them as should be informed, that is, those with recent experience in the US armoured fources, seem to agree that it's nasty). Given that it didn't, either the .50cal AP ammo is "standard loadout" without consideration to whether a given Abrams actually has a .50cal, or it's not good enough to bust in the nose of a BMP. Just having the ammo listed doesn't always mean there's a weapon to fire it (though that's a TO&E error when it happens, usually).

You still haven't provided info on what the turret MGs are. You can read off the different MG types from the "subsystems" list in the info pane. If there's no .50cal entry, and there's a big boxy thing on top of the M1's turret, then you have a rifle-calibre CROWS and the TacAI needs looking at, because the TC isn't considering what variant of the tank he's in when trying to decide what to fire.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

18 rounds of APFSDS is "enough to fight other tanks with". I'm not surprised the TC chose not to waste a silver bullet on a BMP if he thought his MGs could do the job. Similarly, the GP rounds aren't "plentiful" at 18-count, either: consider, that's about half the loadout of a typical WW2 tank, and the Abrams is supposed to be sticking around, largely invulnerable. Those HE rounds are for dislodging crunchies from behind cover, or flattening buildings, not dealing with pesky light armour.

AIUI, if the TC's Ma Deuce was firing SLAP (does all .50cal AP count as SLAP, or is that special round specifically noted?), it should have done the job (since it seems generally accepted that SLAP can punch the side armour of some MBTs !! Yeah, I know, but them as should be informed, that is, those with recent experience in the US armoured fources, seem to agree that it's nasty). Given that it didn't, either the .50cal AP ammo is "standard loadout" without consideration to whether a given Abrams actually has a .50cal, or it's not good enough to bust in the nose of a BMP. Just having the ammo listed doesn't always mean there's a weapon to fire it (though that's a TO&E error when it happens, usually).

You still haven't provided info on what the turret MGs are. You can read off the different MG types from the "subsystems" list in the info pane. If there's no .50cal entry, and there's a big boxy thing on top of the M1's turret, then you have a rifle-calibre CROWS and the TacAI needs looking at, because the TC isn't considering what variant of the tank he's in when trying to decide what to fire.

It still looked odd. The MG fire was obviously having no effect although   i honestly don't know whethet the AP rounds were being used or not in this particular instance

[c3k]

Well, womble asked directly, but you haven't answered: did the Abrams have and fire a .50?

Did your .50 cal. AP round count decrease during the engagement? (As womble stated, if you do NOT have a .50, then there's definitely something going on with the TacAI.)

If you DO have a .50, but the round count did not decrease, then there's something odd.

Got a pix of the before and after? Focusing on subsystems status and ammo levels?

[John Kettler]

For light armor, and the US Army so classifies the BMP, for I've seen it in the manuals, the preferred round would be the AMP, or what LUCASWILLEN05 calls the Multi. Obviously, the 7.62 mm MG isn't going to cut it, and I consider the Ma Deuce, firing ordinary API, to be useless in a frontal engagement against something designed to defeat 25 or 30 mm IFV APDS fire. This is a big problem because only US sniper teams with the M107 have SLAP. Says so in the CMBS Manual.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

We still trained to hose down BMPs with .50 cal at close range.  My 1SG talked about hosing down a BMP during the 2003 invasion with his .50 and finding that the rounds not only penetrated, but penetrated and came out the other side of the BMP with expected results on crew and passengers.  

Granted it was a flank shot, but it's entirely reasonable to use the .50 cal (frontal shots still tended to penetrate, but usually did not go through and through).  The AMP (or MPAT/HEAT in current use) would be preferred at range though, or against a stationary target at 500+ meter range*

Either way as of October 2014 we were training that it was okay to go with the .50 cal instead of 120 MM against BMPs.  

*At close range the odds of a BMP-1/2 surviving a "manburst" of 10-20 rounds .50 cal is pretty limited, or it will survive but with damage/dead or injured crew, and it is not in a good position to really get off an ATGM.  At longer ranges however the ATGM threat goes up so ensuring total destruction becomes a priority.  

[John Kettler]

panzersaurkrautwerfer (or is it panzersaukrautwerfer?)

This is news to me but very much appreciated regarding frontal shots with standard API. Not exactly a surprise for side shots on something with no added protection. Was your 1SG's victim a BMP-1? Any idea what was penetrated (upper hull, lower hull, turret)? Regardless, I can well believe that performance vs a close target would be greatly improved over a ground mount by virtue of the elevated firing position, which would negate a lot of the effects of armor slope. This isn't something I considered when I responded before.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I'm not sure if it was a BMP-1 or BMP-2, but neither model appeared especially robust, both of which proving entirely vulnerable to concentrated .50 cal and 40 MM HEDP.  I do remember the through and through penetrations were in the troop bay which had rather macabre effects to say the least.  BTRs too.  

Generally most "light" Russian (well, Soviet) vehicles have proven to be fairly weak against .50 cal, API or SLAP-T.  There may be angles at which the vehicles are resistant or even immune to .50 cal fire, however if this is the case it has not made a significant impact on the perceived vulnerability of BMP or BTR type vehicles which would cast if those angles or areas were especially effective.  

[LUCASWILLEN05]

We still trained to hose down BMPs with .50 cal at close range.  My 1SG talked about hosing down a BMP during the 2003 invasion with his .50 and finding that the rounds not only penetrated, but penetrated and came out the other side of the BMP with expected results on crew and passengers.  

Granted it was a flank shot, but it's entirely reasonable to use the .50 cal (frontal shots still tended to penetrate, but usually did not go through and through).  The AMP (or MPAT/HEAT in current use) would be preferred at range though, or against a stationary target at 500+ meter range*

Either way as of October 2014 we were training that it was okay to go with the .50 cal instead of 120 MM against BMPs.  

*At close range the odds of a BMP-1/2 surviving a "manburst" of 10-20 rounds .50 cal is pretty limited, or it will survive but with damage/dead or injured crew, and it is not in a good position to really get off an ATGM.  At longer ranges however the ATGM threat goes up so ensuring total destruction becomes a priority.

Interesting. Amazingly my BMP seeme to bar aa continuosly charmed life. It keppt reversing and even managed to immobilise the tank. Maybe it was one of those freak, one off incidents but rthat |Russian BMP crew will be getting free vodkas for a month and dining out on he story of how they went toe to toe with an M1A2 and lived to tell the tale. Immobilizing it, no less!

[Luka]

Interesting. Amazingly my BMP seeme to bar aa continuosly charmed life. It keppt reversing and even managed to immobilise the tank. Maybe it was one of those freak, one off incidents but rthat |Russian BMP crew will be getting free vodkas for a month and dining out on he story of how they went toe to toe with an M1A2 and lived to tell the tale. Immobilizing it, no less!

You can just imagine how that story would be spun and quickly known by all Russian soldiers. From "M1A2 immobilised by AFV" to "crew cheats death destroying the mighty Abrams"

[LUCASWILLEN05]

You can just imagine how that story would be spun and quickly known by all Russian soldiers. From "M1A2 immobilised by AFV" to "crew cheats death destroying the mighty Abrams"

At 15 meters no less! A knife fight would be understating the situation