Which BMP to Choose?

[BTR]

we'll just have to agree to disagree in the argument of BMPs over Bradleys.  Can BMP cannon kill Brads? Absolutely.  But its just way to easy and common for my BMPs to come out on the losing end to think theres any comparison.  I just dont handle Brads with the same kid gloves I do BMPs.  After all too - Bradleys CAN and WILL KO Soviet MBTs from the side and rear.  Thats just not happening with the BMP. (except for the Kornet which to me remains mythical

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. 

[antaress73]

In tests . I've killed M1A2 Abrams with BTR-82A in games Agaibst the AI too. But much more difficult to achieve against a human. You will see more kills of T-Xx with the Bradley 's autocannon than BMP/BTR kills of Abrams . question of sensors  and Laser warning reaction time too. BTW, With an off the shelf laser warning receiver , is the Abrams and brad's instant smoke disapearing act realistic   ?

 

[BTR]

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

[Stagler]

BMP-2M, because it isn't made of paper and doesn't explode violently at the slightest touch of incoming small arms fire.

Also if you leave the command team/plt command team/small team in the commander slot within the vehicle; it has good spotting.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Stagler

[antaress73]

 

 

 

 

Bmp-2 has the same armor as BMP-,3 no ? And is the BMP-3 going Nuclear most of the time when penetrated and taking out nearby armored vehicules realistic ? I think they would design ammo less susceptible to explosions. Does it have such à réputation in real life or Battlefront just extrapolated ? 

 

 

 

 

[antaress73]

I've just read a Russian general severely criticized the bmp-3 calling it a " coffin" in 2010. Btw , Russia bought  "several hundreds" of these  BMP-3M Dragun  while waiting for the kurganets:

http://m.sputniknews.com/russia/20150917/1027144651/afp-features-expo.html 

That baby should be in the game instead of the BMP-2M in the next module or  Russian ORBAT  expansion pack.

It seems more spacious and safe with the engine in front , rear ramp, unmanned turret with thermal caméra and target tracker, panoramic sight for the commander

Edited December 27, 2015 by antaress73

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 Does it have such à réputation in real life or Battlefront just extrapolated 

The big difference in terms of explosion risk between the two is that the BMP-3 is filled with much more volatile ammunition.  The rounds for the 100 mm gun are a primo source for catastrophic cookoff, and unlike a tank, which broadly speaking will contain some of the explosion (or at least vent it upwards through the hatches/launching the turret), the vehicle just doesn't have the sort of armor to contain and direct the explosion.  

So basically imagine roadwheels, the turret, and other "heavier" bits getting thrown through the air thanks to the 40+ 100 MM rounds stowed in the vehicle and slamming into nearby vehicles.  I think being next to one having a catastrophic detonation would certainly be a very dramatic event and would make an impression on neighboring vehicles.

The BMP-2 on the other hand only has a few ATGMs and the 30 MM rounds, which are less prone to a mass cookoff, and more of a "popcorn" detonation, which will lower the used sale price of the vehicle by a lot, but is not as likely to be as dangerous as a burning BMP-3.  

[BTR]

Bmp-2 has the same armor as BMP-,3 no ? And is the BMP-3 going Nuclear most of the time when penetrated and taking out nearby armored vehicules realistic ? I think they would design ammo less susceptible to explosions. Does it have such à réputation in real life or Battlefront just extrapolated ? 

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. 

[Sublime]

Definitely you have to be skilled. Doctrine. Perhaps. I tend to just... use them as I see fit. It does me fairly well though perhaps it does you quite a bit better - however I dont have access to Soviet or Russian field manuals on the doctrine of their using their modern day armor. I know I could google it etc etc but I have a lot going on in real life (kid, job, etc etc) so unless you could help me out with a link or a .pdf the 'Clark Doctrine' shall continue =)

Also I wasnt trying to be rude in my comments Antaress. I hope you didnt take them that way.

Any type of engagement versus Bradleys I handle all Russ armor with kid gloves. Even with T90AMs Im very aware of the capabilities of say Brads and therefore am wary of them.   I also always try to position things so when things get to where both vehicles spot eachother mines preferably sitting still pointed in the direction he's gonna come from.

Does anyone know if adding the 'extra' crewman as people do with the BMP2M affects only the 2M or does it help the 2, and 3?

 

Also while I've noticed CM does seem to reinforce the idea that if Soviet era MBTs are struck and penetrated they tend to explode in fantastic manner (and IFVs as well obv) Ive also happened to see some very very strange things as well that were either bugs or maybe point to parts of certain Soviet tanks being very blast resistant.  Case in point - I was doing an attack DAAR with JammerSix several months ago. Not the Because Bradlehy the following where I had armor.  One of my T90AMs parked next to a house had 3 separate US precision artillery strikes where a round penetrated the vehicle ( in different spots!) and the vehicle survived and remained combat effective.  Some subsystems were hit to the point of being 'orangey circles', mostly the tracks, which I take to mean the tracks took some minor damage.  Ive also seen other anecdotal incidents that actually directly contradict the stories from IRL and in game here.  But its anedotal and still rare enough on my end to really think in the end that if I see hundreds or possibly thousands of armor engagements by now  Ill have seen a lot of bizarre outlier events.

T64s shrugging off multiple penetrations from T72s..    T90As being completely penetrated and panicked twice in a battle and still continuing to fight once I guess Comrade Orlovskys blood was cleaned up by the freaked out crew.

Of course for the US side theres things like

Including also 3 BMPs penetrated by US 120mm round

2 MBTS and an MTLB KO'd by an Abram

6 Trucks KOd by an Abram

Things like this make the game great IMO, except of course some things are a bit much.  Like the penetrations all havent happened to me. In fact I believe (not 100%) 2 of my 3 US examples were me as US fighting AI.  I do think the idea of rounds penetrating multiple vehicles should be looked at, along with rounds that dont have a bursting charge in them still exploding when they richochet and flop off and land somewhere and blow up.

Sorry for this being kinda ranty in advance..

Edited December 27, 2015 by Sublime

[antaress73]

Sublime: dont worry about sounding rude. As far as doctrine, bmps are made to support the infantry  and carry them around, not to be used  as lighti-tanks in Russian doctrine. Using support assets like aviation  (fixed-wing and rotary) artilery ( including précision guided) and tanks to remove threats  to the infantry (punch à hole for it) in à speedy manne and using shockr  with lots of snoke (now multispectral ) is doctrine. Nothing spécial and esoteric about it :D

 

 

 

[antaress73]

Definitely you have to be skilled. Doctrine. Perhaps. I tend to just... use them as I see fit. It does me fairly well though perhaps it does you quite a bit better - however I dont have access to Soviet or Russian field manuals on the doctrine of their using their modern day armor. I know I could google it etc etc but I have a lot going on in real life (kid, job, etc etc) so unless you could help me out with a link or a .pdf the 'Clark Doctrine' shall continue =)

Also I wasnt trying to be rude in my comments Antaress. I hope you didnt take them that way.

Any type of engagement versus Bradleys I handle all Russ armor with kid gloves. Even with T90AMs Im very aware of the capabilities of say Brads and therefore am wary of them.   I also always try to position things so when things get to where both vehicles spot eachother mines preferably sitting still pointed in the direction he's gonna come from.

Does anyone know if adding the 'extra' crewman as people do with the BMP2M affects only the 2M or does it help the 2, and 3?

 

Also while I've noticed CM does seem to reinforce the idea that if Soviet era MBTs are struck and penetrated they tend to explode in fantastic manner (and IFVs as well obv) Ive also happened to see some very very strange things as well that were either bugs or maybe point to parts of certain Soviet tanks being very blast resistant.  Case in point - I was doing an attack DAAR with JammerSix several months ago. Not the Because Bradlehy the following where I had armor.  One of my T90AMs parked next to a house had 3 separate US precision artillery strikes where a round penetrated the vehicle ( in different spots!) and the vehicle survived and remained combat effective.  Some subsystems were hit to the point of being 'orangey circles', mostly the tracks, which I take to mean the tracks took some minor damage.  Ive also seen other anecdotal incidents that actually directly contradict the stories from IRL and in game here.  But its anedotal and still rare enough on my end to really think in the end that if I see hundreds or possibly thousands of armor engagements by now  Ill have seen a lot of bizarre outlier events.

T64s shrugging off multiple penetrations from T72s..    T90As being completely penetrated and panicked twice in a battle and still continuing to fight once I guess Comrade Orlovskys blood was cleaned up by the freaked out crew.

Of course for the US side theres things like

Including also 3 BMPs penetrated by US 120mm round

2 MBTS and an MTLB KO'd by an Abram

6 Trucks KOd by an Abram

Things like this make the game great IMO, except of course some things are a bit much.  Like the penetrations all havent happened to me. In fact I believe (not 100%) 2 of my 3 US examples were me as US fighting AI.  I do think the idea of rounds penetrating multiple vehicles should be looked at, along with rounds that dont have a bursting charge in them still exploding when they richochet and flop off and land somewhere and blow up.

Sorry for this being kinda ranty in advance..

ah and yes .. Drones .. . the orlan-10 has à laser designator. Take out the Bradleys with it. . two crack Orlan with crack air controllers and veteran  arty batteries should precision KO quite a few brads instead of risking BMPs or will make à kill ratii of 2-1 for the brads acceptable for dealing with the renainibg brads if there is some. Or use tanks 

[antaress73]

BMP should support infantry assaults against US infantry previously softened up by arty or mortars. And way back they should be to mitigate the occasional hero launching an at-4 at long-range despite small arms fire , aytocannon, 100mm rounds exploding all around him.

[VladimirTarasov]

I've just read a Russian general severely criticized the bmp-3 calling it a " coffin" in 2010. Btw , Russia bought  "several hundreds" of these  BMP-3M Dragun  while waiting for the kurganets:

http://m.sputniknews.com/russia/20150917/1027144651/afp-features-expo.html 

That baby should be in the game instead of the BMP-2M in the next module or  Russian ORBAT  expansion pack.

It seems more spacious and safe with the engine in front , rear ramp, unmanned turret with thermal caméra and target tracker, panoramic sight for the commander

Some Russian "Officers" in the First chechen war said the T-80s were junk not needed, And a waste. In reality, They were too incompetent to realise that the T-80s were sent without proper support, Or knowledge of the area or situation they would get into before hand. BMP-3s are great tools, And like said before, If penetrated and hit in the carrousel it will explode, And the Carrousel isn't that exposed, It also has cover against spalling armor, Or pieces from projectiles.  

[Stagler]

Dragun: no carousel so no catastrophic explosion survivability problem when the hull is penetrated

[Kieme(ITA)]

The BMP-3 is filled with explosives, not just the turret carousel...

This is how exposed the carousel is...

 

Edited January 2, 2016 by Kieme(ITA)

[Kieme(ITA)]

Another storage, 5 rounds (If I am not mistaken missiles), it's on the left sponson... (take a look at the extreme left of the picture)

As you can see it is designed to take 5 rounds, they are practically in direct contact with the left armor plate, the top one and the one covering the tracks... they are few centimeters from at least 3 crew members and as you can see there's nothing between them and the entire compartment (same goes for the red carousel you can see on the previous photo). 

Here they are when stored:

Edited January 2, 2016 by Kieme(ITA)

[Kieme(ITA)]

Now take a look at this picture.

It shows the lower part of the carousel, where the explosives are stored horizontally, see the cavities where you could see them if they were stored like in a combat situation.

As you can see they are directly exposed, there is nothing between them and the crew compartment, this means that any fragment of hot metal getting inside such comparment can hit any of those explosives without encountering any metal obstacle.

If you wander what's under those three seats you can see in the previous picture...

Another ammo rack...

 

So, in conclusion, you have a fighting compartment housing something like:

22 High Explosive rounds (100mm), located in the turret.

18 High Explosive rounds (100mm), located behind the turret under the passenger seats.

Each round (and I belive missiles too) requires and has a propellant charge to be used (separate).

Each round has a mass of 13 to 15 kg, add the explosive of each charge...

To the above add the available missiles (3 + 5), plus the 30mm rounds.

Considering all of this I really can't find anything strange that the game sets a high probability for a catastrophic explosion when it comes to the BMP-3.

 

 

 

Edited January 2, 2016 by Kieme(ITA)

[Ivanov]

In my current Valley of Death game the BMP-3's equipped with the APS intercept all the TOW-2B's launched at them. In one instance my dismounted infantry squad and a nearby Bradley started engaging the BMP-3 but thanks to APS it didn't even get a scratch. Instead it managed to kill the Bradley and the infantrymen.

I just don't want know what will happen, when this will be eventually featured in the game:

 

share image

Edited January 2, 2016 by Ivanov

[VladimirTarasov]

Kieme, You are right, I didn't mention the rounds stored in the hull(I guess I forgot about them), But in combat operations only the carrousel would be loaded. Unless the commander deems it necessary to have all rounds on board. Which would indeed expose it even more to nuclear explosion

Ivanov, I cant wait for the next gen vehicles to be put in   

Edited January 3, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[DougPhresh]

I'd really like being able to select the weapon and settings.

I just played a UKR vs RUS quick battle, and my BMP-3s used autocannon against the BULATs rather than ATGM.

Likewise, being able to use contact fuses for the 100mm gun would be a fantastic tool.

[VladimirTarasov]

DougPhresh, Even the 100mm HE would have been a better choice, His optics would be destroyed so would his gun, I've noticed it usually depends on the range on how the AI decide to engage targets. I've had BMP-3s use ATGMs before though. But a use weapon option would be great in my opinion. Or even a better function would be to disable some weapons for example the 100 mm so that they can use 30 mm only. 

[Kieme(ITA)]

Consider that the ATGM BMP-3 use are ineffective against the Bulat reactive armor... Besides, I have seen on several occasions the use of 30mm against Bulats, followed by a salvo of two missiles, more than enough to cripple and destroy the tank.

 

I have serious doubds a 100mm "contact fuse" ammunition of any kind would be effective against a modern or modernized MBT. The 100mm used by the BMP-3 has little effectiveness with kinetic energy weapons.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Kieme(ITA)

[BTR]

Consider that the ATGM BMP-3 use are ineffective against the Bulat reactive armor... 

All 9K116 system related missiles beginning from 9M117M are tandem charged. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The only times HE really has worked well in terms of anti-armor has been in the case of artillery sized shells.  The 100 MM HE contact fuse or no would be a pretty losing proposition to hit any semi-modern tank with.  You'd likely get the same upper limit success against subsystems sticking with autocannon fire

[Kieme(ITA)]

All 9K116 system related missiles beginning from 9M117M are tandem charged. 

If you do some tests you'll see that T-64 Bulat reactive armor stops the BMP-3 ATGM.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Kieme(ITA)