BMP-2s using HE against Strykers?!

[Strangerr]

I just played scenerio in which Syrian bmp-2s fight against US Strykers. I was amazed that Strykers seem unaffected by 30mm autocannon fire. When i looked closer, I noticed that they're using HE ammo against armored target... It's obviously a minor bug, and i find it's strange that it wasn't fixed in 1.03. Are there any workarounds?

[Exel]

The devs seemed to think that using HE on armored targets would be smart for not just BMPs, but other Syrian vehicles as well. Mind you, no crew in their right mind would fire HE on an armored vehicle unless the situation was really dire.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Statisoris]

Especially for troops of low experience who act in a very "first thought" way, ie, O crap a armored vehicle, shoot some AP at it!

[metalbrew]

HEAT and HE are different rounds. Firing HE at Strykers would have a fair chance of damaging it (with an eventual kill) while HEAT would be a very quick kill.

[MikeyD]

There was alot of discussion on this during patch development and AP use has been hiked upward as a result. Apparently, one issue with the BMP-2's 30mm gun vs Stryker is its HE is rated to pierce something like 50mm (can't recall at what range). Stryker ceramic armor is rated at 56mm equivalent. So if the first couple rounds don't penetrate the HE should bust-up the ceramic tiles enough allow penetration on the 3-4th hit.

I think there was a similar argument with tank gun HE. If your AP has zero % chance of piercing an Abrams front why bother using it? Again, after much discussion the use of AP for tanks was upped too.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

You will also find that Bradleys are using HE where they should be using APFSDS rounds against BMP2s.

Clearly something in the medium canon ammunition coding. Or I guess it is anyway.. .

All the best,

Kip.

[MikeyD]

That Bradley HE thing might just be the same issue. BMP-2 armor should just barely be good enough to stand up against .50 cal head-on. The game's internal penetration stats are probably giving a green light to 25mm HE against BMP-2 for all practical ranges.

But I do agree - AP has a certain unexplainable 'coolness' factor that makes you want to see it in use more often than it is currently.

[Exel]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I think there was a similar argument with tank gun HE. If your AP has zero % chance of piercing an Abrams front why bother using it? Again, after much discussion the use of AP for tanks was upped too.

If your AP has zero chance of effecting the enemy armor, you don't fire. HE would realistically have even less chance, and firing that would only reveal your position to the enemy. The only situation any sane tank crew would use HE on an enemy tank would be if they are out of AP and absolutely have to engage (kinda similar to infantry using their assault rifles on enemy helos).

The idea of using HE over AP to damage enemy armor is similar to the idea of "aiming for weakspots". Sounds all fine and dandy in theory, but has absolutely no relevance with real life combat.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

The only problem is that Bradley fired 25mmm HE does not kill the BMP2s…

All the best,

Kip

[thewood]

Did M4's fire HE at panthers and Tigers in WW2?

[Strangerr]

Has this been officially recognized as bug? Really, I find this issue game-breaking in many scenerios. I set up nice ambush for incoming Stryker MGS, watch it being pounded from 2 30mm ACs from around 100m for several seconds at side armor and then cry when Stryker rotates and kills off my precious BMPs.

[birdstrike]

Did M4's fire HE at panthers and Tigers in WW2?

Well, I sure did (in CMX1 that is)

@Exel:

the whole HE vs. impenetrable armor thing means to cause some damage to the outer sensors or other "soft spots" if nothing else works. And there are quite some things on the M1 turret which don't like being hit with an explosive shell.

I, for one, prefer my tanks firing HE if nothing works, than to just have them sit there and shrug their shoulders.

Then again, the BMP-2/Bradley thing is probably a bit different - these vehicles could profit from using their AP rounds against other ICVs/IFVs.

[Exel]

Originally posted by birdstrike:

@Exel:

the whole HE vs. impenetrable armor thing means to cause some damage to the outer sensors or other "soft spots" if nothing else works. And there are quite some things on the M1 turret which don't like being hit with an explosive shell.

Like I said, it looks good in theory. However reality is a bit different. HE shells would barely scratch the paint of the armor, and the only things you could realistically damage with them on a tank would be some optics, external (secondary) weapons, radio antennas, and external equipment (the crew will be pissed). If you're lucky maybe the tracks and main gun. At most you'd achieve a mission kill on the vehicle, more probably you'd just annoy the heck out of the crew and make you their target priority number one.

So unless the situation is absolutely dire to warrant any and all desperate measures available, no sane crew will quick-order a suicide just for the chance to do some minor damage on the target vehicle if they have better munitions available (ie. dedicated AP rounds).

I, for one, prefer my tanks firing HE if nothing works, than to just have them sit there and shrug their shoulders.

If your AP rounds can't cut it, you maneuver to a better position (flank) to use them from with hopefully better success. You don't expose your position and get your self killed by using something even less effective. Just like you don't charge that Abrams with a spear just because you think your RPG might not cut it.

[birdstrike]

Of course, you're right, usually you wouldn't engage an Abrams from the front, but if my tanks use HE, I'm assuming they are already in a position where they were not able to flank their target, so it's actually what you already said - a desperate move. And in such a situation AP rounds are worse than HE rounds - they just bounce off doing nothing.

Now, in such a situation if you have to pick between an AP shell which only scratches the paint and an HE shell which has the slightest chance to damage a sensor and thus keeps the enemy from shooting you, what would you pick?

[Exel]

Originally posted by birdstrike:

Now, in such a situation if you have to pick between an AP shell which only scratches the paint and an HE shell which has the slightest chance to damage a sensor and thus keeps the enemy from shooting you, what would you pick?

AP. Always AP. It at least has a chance of penetrating a weak spot, and it too can damage or take out optics and whatnot. The HE round is a lot less likely to keep the enemy from shooting back.

[birdstrike]

I can only base my assumptions on the game, but from what I've seen in the Allah's Fist scenario, for example, HE works better when facing an Abrams from the frontal arc.

AP hits can only affect a very limited spot on the tank, whereas HE has a certain blast radius. Using AP hoping to damage a sensor seems like taking out an ATG with a Cruiser Mk I tank.

And if nothing else, than the crew inside the Abrams should like the sound of the explosion less than the sound of the ricochet.

But, maybe to reflect the different opinions as seen in this thread, the game could have a random pick for such cases. I think it would be quite nice to see different crews acting differently based on their assumptions, just like we here would.

[JasonC]

30mm might have difficulty against a Brad over the frontal arc, but for it to bounce from Strykers is ridiculous. The Stryker failed the armor proof requirement to stop 14.5mm AP at 100 yards. It requires additional armor (not the cage, plate backing) to be even 14.5mm plain AP "proof" - and would still be penetrable by 14.5mm SLAP (saboted), let alone by 23mm or 30mm. It is simply not designed to stop autocannon fire, only MG fire and artillery shrapnel.

[Battlefront.com]

Point of clarification here...

Are you guys seeing the continued use of HE instead of AP in version 1.03? We did make tweaks to that so things should be different than they were in v1.02.

Steve

[Denwad]

Playing Hammertime i saw T-72s hitting Bradleys with HEAT and BMP-2s using their AP ammo on bradleys

[Battlefront.com]

JasonC,

The Stryker failed the armor proof requirement to stop 14.5mm AP at 100 yards.

That was the initial batch of tiles, which were rejected. The ones all Strykers have in the field (and always had in the field) perform up to specs. However...

It is simply not designed to stop autocannon fire, only MG fire and artillery shrapnel.

Correct if you're talking about AP. There was a problem in v1.02 that caused BMP-2s to use HE instead of AP against Strykers. It should be fixed in v1.03. If it isn't I want to know about it

Steve

[kipanderson]

Steve,

Yes... I am talking about 1.03 for the Bradley firing on the BMP2. About 800m...just went on and on firing HE.

All the best,

Kip.

[Molloy]

Originally posted by JasonC:

30mm might have difficulty against a Brad over the frontal arc, but for it to bounce from Strykers is ridiculous. The Stryker failed the armor proof requirement to stop 14.5mm AP at 100 yards. It requires additional armor (not the cage, plate backing) to be even 14.5mm plain AP "proof" - and would still be penetrable by 14.5mm SLAP (saboted), let alone by 23mm or 30mm. It is simply not designed to stop autocannon fire, only MG fire and artillery shrapnel.

I set up a test scenario of a platoon of BMP-2s (Republican Guard) facing Strykers at 250 and 500 meters (all line formation, 12oc facing respectively). They mostly fired AP rounds. However, as JasonC correctly stated, this should be catastrophic to the Strykers, but instead the rounds were ricocheting, causing little damage.

Dozens of 30mm AP were impacting and yet the Strykers kept chattering away with their fifties, until the AT-5s finally silenced them.

[metalbrew]

BMP2s are definitely still firing HE rounds at Strykers in v1.03. I've played Jisrash Shughar 4 times are the Syrians and it takes 30-45 seconds of HE fire to kill a Stryker.

[JasonC]

MikeyD - 56mm equivalent is clearly nonsense, it is about half that. Ceramic is strongest against HEAT and might merit that high a rating against it, but not against kinetic energy.

The 14.5mm plain AP that was holing Strykers routinely in the tests before added plate uparmoring, are rated to penetrate 30mm at close range and 20mm at medium range. The muzzle energy is 32,000 joules.

Fielded Strykers can barely stop that. They do not overmatch it by a factor of two, not remotely.

The muzzle energy of the Russian 30mm is 205,000 joules - 6.5 times as much as the 14.5mm that the Stryker had to be upgraded to barely stop.

A Stryker doesn't have a prayer of preventing penetration by Russian 30mm AP. The behind armor effect might not be enough on any given hit - it is a large vehicle and the total energy being dumped in is well under a million joules. But getting in in the first place should be no problem at all, and 5 successive hits or so should easily be enough to kill the vehicle, almost all the time.