A bit of news on MGS production

[John Kettler]

Seems to me there's also a rather big difference between a high velocity, high angle BMP-2/3 30mm cannon projectile practically immune to crosswind when compared to the BMP-1's RPG-7 like low velocity projectile which weathercocks in practically any wind at all. The 30mm ought to be able to give even a slatted Styrker all manner of grief from all aspects, but I wouldn't want to bet my life on BMP-1 HEAT under the same conditions. As for range, the 30mm beats the BMP-1 main gun all hollow.

As for uniqueness, ARMOR magazine some years ago ran

an article comparing Bradley high angle capability

with that of the BMP-2/3 in MOUT and concluded that the Russians were way ahead in terms of ability to engage upper levels, minimize blind spots and the like. Also singled out for mention

were the BMP-2/3's potent antihelicopter capabilities conferred by having such high angle mounts. This corresponds neatly with what Suvorov had to say about measures against the "flying tank" (attack helo).

Would further add that the 30mm is a potent weapon against things like A-10s, too. The A-10's slow enough that in exercises pitting tacair against MILES equipped ground targets, the A-10s on several occasions found themselves winners of their very own tank fired main gun KE rounds. Analyses I was involved with for a future CAS bird showed that a BMP-2 march serial had considerable

inherent air defense capability even without the then usual ZSUs and SA-9/13 add-ons.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ January 09, 2006, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Battlefront.com]

FHF and URC,

couldn't agree more. in my honest opinion BMP-3 is radically different to BMP-1 and BMP-2. what i would like to add to its merits is that it has higher mobility than Bradley and it can fire indirect fire with airburst shells. BMP-3 is like all the Stryker models in one vehicle.

See above comments to flamingknives. I made the comment about the BMP-3 and BMP-1 comparison in the context of the MGS and MGS only. The MGS has nothing to compare against while the BMP-3, while certainly quite different, isn't radically different from a BMP-1. At least not the way I see it.

as Steve keeps calling this IFV a recon vehicle, i think he might be thinking about the recon variant.

Well, I call it a recon vehicle because I figured it would be used as such by the Syrians. It does NOT carry a full squad as Global Security states (it is more like a rifle team), is horribly laid out for dismounting, and the 100mm gun is considered marginal at best. I'll have to check back into my materials, but I think there was some debate if it really is much better than the BMP-1's gun.

But again, don't get me wrong guys. I like the BMP-3. But the decision to put something in or not is not based on my likes or dislikes. Never has been.

Steve

[manchildstein (ii)]

they have all these old tracked personnel carriers (m113?) sitting in depots... they should put a 105mm on those... probably could airlift them ok...

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Steve,

no hard feelings if it isn't included.

i think there was this funky idea behind BMP-3. the 6 men dismount and form the maneuver team. squad leader and gunner remain in BMP-3 and use the vehicle as the fire team.

[hellfish]

Yeah, no hard feelings. I thought it was worth a shot.

[Battlefront.com]

No hard feelings? I think you guys suck! Hehe...

The whole development of the BMP-3 is an example of how not to go about vehicle developmnet. It was a vehicle designed for a role that did not exist. Vehicles and weapons are supposed to be designed to fit tactics, not the other way around.

Steve

[akd]

The BMP-3 is the latest IFV model of the Russian BMP family bearing the best design features of the BMP-1 (1966) and the BMP-2 (1980). Its missions are: to provide armour and NBC protection to infantry troops; to enhance their fire power and mobility in the battlefield; to engage enemy manpower (in the open or sheltered), pill-boxes and ground materiel including tanks and armoured vehicles as well as slow/low flying helicopters. The fire can be conducted from the vehicle stationed, moving or afloat.

The design is characterized by the rear arrangement of engine-transmission compartment. The fighting compartment comprises gunner's and commander's stations in the turret. The control compartment in the front part of the vehicle accommodates central driver's seat with two side seats of assault party. The assault troops compartment divided from the engine compartment with a bulkhead accommodates 5 (7) men. Arrangement of hatches and doors is troops-friendly allowing their quick mounting and dismounting the vehicle on the move.

The BMP-3 hull is made of armoured aluminium plates and has spaced steel-aluminium frontal armour.

The chassis has a large safety margin and remarkable dynamic characteristics. The independent torsion-bar suspension has a wide road wheel travel ensuring cross country smooth ride without bouncing and swinging. Water crossing requires no preliminary preparation. Water operations are powered by a water jet propulsion system.

The vehicle is equipped with the smoke grenade-launching/generating systems, automatic fire-fighting system, communication aids, built-in dozer equipment, NBC protection system. The BMP-3 IFV can be transported by rail, track, sea and air means. The BMP-3 IFV has been constantly upgraded to increase its field reliability and survivability. New engine, sighting equipment and air conditioner are being developed.

The powerful armament system mounted in the rotating turret comprises 2A70 100 mm Gun/Missile Launcher, 2A72 30 mm Automatic Gun and one 7.62 mm PKT Machine Gun, all stabilized in vertical and horizontal planes. Two 7.62 mm PKT Machine Guns with TNP3VE01 fibre-optics sight are mounted in the hull.

The gun of 100 mm big calibre, unique for ICVs, combines capabilities of conventional artillery pieces and guided weapons. The unique design of the autoloader allows fire delivery at a high rate within the entire range of gun elevation angles. The firing accuracy is considerably increased owing to optimal characteristics of the armament stabilizer.

The BMP-3 ICV features automatic fire control system allowing gun fire and missile launches through gun barrel on the move. It comprises ID16 Laser Range-finder and a Ballistic Data Computer, 1K13-2 Day/Night Gunner's Sight with OU-5 Searchlight, PPB-2 Gunner's Monocular Periscope Sight, 1PZ-10 Commander's Monocular Periscope Day Sight, TKN-3MB Commander's Day/Night Vision Device with OU-3 IR Illuminator.

Basic Characteristics

Combat weight, t 18.7

Personnel, men:

crew 3

mounted troops 7

Engine 10-cylinder 4-stroke V-shaped UTD-29 Diesel

Engine power, hp 450

Max speed, km/h:

on highway 70

afloat 10

Nominal ground pressure, kgf/sq.cm 0.61

Max cruising range, on highway, km 600

Negotiated obstacles, m:

ditch width 2.5

wall height 0.8

ARMAMENT

Traverse zone of fire, deg 360

Elevation zone of fire, deg -6 ... +60

100 mm gun/missile launcher

Missile loading manual

Range of missile fire, m 100 ... 4,000

Range of gun fire, m Up to 4,000

Rate of fire, rounds/min 10

100 mm round load, pieces 40

Guided missile load, pieces 8

30 mm automatic gun

Range of fire, m up to 4,000

Rate of fire, rds/min 300

30 mm ammunition load, pcs 500

7.62 mm machine gun (3 pcs)

Ammunition load, cartridges 6,000

Dimensions, m:

length, hull 6.715

width, over tracks 3.15

height, turret roof 3.57

Communications equipment: R-173 Transceiver, R-173P Receiver, R-174 Intercom

Pretty interesting vehicle on paper. Shame to leave it out considering how little diversity and capability there is amongst most other Syrian AFVs. Isn't the Syrian military boring enough in its backward Sovietness? Would be nice to have a more mobile and concealable platform for the gun-launched ATGMs, and this is also supposedly the intended carrier for Syria's (reported) SA-18 acquisition.

[ January 09, 2006, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: akd ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The BMP3 is a stupid vehicle. But it's there and it looks fun.

Sorry, that never has and never will be the overriding reason for why something gets into our games or not. You can look back over 8 years of posts and find that we've consistently rejected this as a prime reason for choosing something.</font>

[MikeyD]

Vehicles and weapons are supposed to be designed to fit tactics, not the other way around.

*cough* Bradley *cough*

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

I'd be happier with that than some crack-pot "US airpower would have annihilated them" cop-out.

That's hardly the main reason.</font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Vehicles and weapons are supposed to be designed to fit tactics, not the other way around.

*cough* Bradley *cough* </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Vanir,

*cough* Sturmtiger *cough*

Possible exception to the rule However, note how many vehicles we did NOT put into games just because people wanted them to be. Like the Funnies or King Tigers in CMAK.

flamingknives,

M113 usually mounts a .50 cal HMG, just like the Stryker, the armour comparison between M113 and Stryker is roughly the same as BMP1 to BMP3, both M113 and Stryker carry 2 crew and 10 dismounts, both are in the same role.

They aren't the same beasts at all. Tracked and wheeled being a significant difference. The fact that a .50 is mounted on pretty much everything in the US inventory isn't very impressive as a comparison either.

How is that a stretch?

Because if you lower the bar as much as you did, then there pretty much isn't any reason to not include something. Put the bar higher.

Of course, it's your game and you can do as you please.

Of course You guys just have to understand that we must use some sort of logic to leave out stuff. You might disagree with the logic or the results, and that's fine, just don't try to make claims that we're being illogical about it and therefore we should put in whatever pet vehicle you want. That's the low bar threshold I was talking about us needing to avoid.

Steve

[hellfish]

I'm crossing my fingers for a BMP-3 in an expansion pack. Whether it's in Syrian, Russian, Korean or Cypriot camo does not matter to me.

[MikeyD]

The BMP-3 is the least of it. There's a whole list of vehicles that BFC has NOT promised will be in the game! No word on the armored M1114 hummer or M1117 or M113A3 or M9 ACE earthmover or locally uparmored trucks or M882 ARVs...

This isn't meant as a criticism. The game's going to have what the game's going to have. We either get fewer high poygon count vehicles or more lower polygon count vehicles. How fancy do you want each vehicle to be? Me, I couldn't care less about the BMP-3 but would drool over the prospect of playing with an M1117 ASV. But at the end of the day the game will be just so big and no bigger. There's always going to be one more vehicle type someone wants squeezed onto the disk.

[hellfish]

I could live without the M1117 - it's only issued to MP units AFAIR. M1114, M113 and M9 would be nice though - especially if the ACE can do actual engineering functions (mainly breach obstacles).

[hellfish]

This info was sent to me via email by someone who'd prefer to remain anonymous. He said it was OK to post. Very interesting stuff:

http://www.gdrs.com/manufacturing/program.asp?UniqueID=30

You may be interested in this considering the MGS stryker posts.

The stryker must aligned its turret to 0 degrees (face forward) to replenish its auto loader. It can select amongst the ammo types it already has in its autoloader.

This brings up the concern about what to have IN the autoloader.

http://www.ausa.org/webpub/DeptArmyMagazine.nsf/byid/CCRN-6CCS8F

Once MGS is fielded, its principal function will be "to provide rapid and lethal direct fires to support assaulting infantry. With its eight-round carousel, along with the 10-round replenisher, the MGS can provide 18 rounds on target with a rate of fire of nearly six rounds per minute. With the development and procurement of a new 105 mm canister round, the MGS will be able to meet its requirement for the primary armament to engage and defeat a dismounted infantry squad in the open from a minimum of 50 meters to a maximum of 500 meters. Finally, a bunker can be defeated, or a hole in a wall provided, using 105 mm ammunition."

Lets say that it has 2 AP and 1 Cannister and 1 HEAT and 4 HEDP in the carousel. If it engages a MBT threat with its Antitank rounds (AP and HEAT), it will only have 3 dedicated rounds 'ready-racked'. If it has to replenish AP/HEAT, it must bring its turret face forward, let the rounds be placed into the carousel (the 'brass' must cleared also I suppose) before it can face another armored threat.

If attacking infantry, it has a similar issue with going through ready rounds quickly and needed to re-rack up rounds. The vehicle must always deploy itself so that it can quickly move its turret to the front if need be.

Given the limited rounds available (18 total of all kinds combined), the MGS will probably use up its ammo quickly in a typical CM scenario.

This is all public information and I received it through the Security Manager for this Army program. I am currently researching the exact tests that the Stryker MGS must pass. Just getting the info on the tests it initially failed is hard enough.

Other issues I see with MGS:

1. Extreme trunnion height. Even with 10 degrees depression of the gun, theres dead space.

2. Firing on a side slope with gun at 3 oclock (firing uphill). Tests will be done with extra armor.

3. Firing on the move at speed.

[Peter Cairns]

Maybe it's just me but as elsewhere I was talking about the Syrians deploying in small combined arms units as a low tech Stryker force with SP guns deployed in support to give direct fire, rather vthan as artillery, then from what fytinghellfish just posted the Soviet 122mm SP Gun would be used pretty much like a Stryker MGS.

Peter.

[MikeyD]

I'm somehow reminded of the obscure old U.S. oscilllating turret programs of the early 50s. Cutting edge technology, fancy autoloader, but limited ammo stowage. The big 120mm gun (same gun as on the Conqueror!) oscillating turret vehicle could theoretically fire off the contents of its ammo carousel in just 16 seconds! That's what you get when you combine big guns & little vehicles (IS-2 comes to mind). Nobody's going to confuse MGS with an honest-to-God tank

[Battlefront.com]

Interesting MGS info there Fishy! I was aware of the reload alignment problem, but hadn't thought through the autoloader ramifications. Very interesting.

Gun elevation is a big problem for AFVs. This is one thing that the BMP-2 has an advantage over most AFVs. I've heard specific complaints about the Abrams and Bradley not being able to engage targets in basements or on rooftops. At least not in many practical situations. Obviously if the targets are hundreds of meters away it is possible, but 50m? I'm not sure exactly what the limitations are in terms of degrees and meters, but I'd expect not.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

We can simulate a fair number of Humvee variants, I think. The main reason why is that they share more similarities with each other than differences. As always, vehicle variants are more likely to make it into a game than unique, hardly used ones. I remember many times, during CMx1 game development, people said "why can't we have this vehicle, that was either never used or used once, because you have 10 variants of a silly vehicle that I don't even like?" The reason why is that those 10 variants probably took less time to do than that one whacko one. Counter intuitive, but that's the way it goes

Steve

[MikeyD]

This brings up a game mechanics point.

Armor rate of fire was a constant in the older CM games. Either high ROF or low ROF. I always wanted to see ROF drop off after a number of rounds were fired to represent rummaging among depleted ammo bins or restocking the ready rack. Also to account for the poor KT loader fainting from exhaustion after manhandling a dozen heavy rounds!

In the new game engine will MGS be given a 'replenishment moment' where after eight rounds the turret goes to neutral and it sits for a few moments? How about procedures for restocking ammo so the MGS is still of some utility halfway into an hour long battle?

This brings to mind the oldT62 tank 'gun raised' procedure. After a round is fired the gun is automatically elevated to be ble to chamber a new round. I'd like to see this modelled too

[Battlefront.com]

We are going to try and simulate "ready racks" and penalties for replenishing from stores. These rates, as you are well aware of, vary wildly from vehicle to vehicle. The IS-2, for example, had a horrible ammo layout.

Position of gun/turret for reloading should be fairly "easy" to do, regardless of the ready rack stuff.

Crew fatigue is in

Steve

[akd]

The stryker must aligned its turret to 0 degrees (face forward) to replenish its auto loader. It can select amongst the ammo types it already has in its autoloader.

Well that kinda sucks, but brings up the question: do Russian auto-loaders suffer from the same limitation. And speaking of Russian, more obnoxious BMP-3 material, this a high quality vid from Russia:

http://rapidshare.de/files/10807326/VD.BMP-3.avi.html

(Now can someone explain to me what the purpose of the two hull-mounted MGs above the front tracks is?)

[John Kettler]

Steve,

As noted in the thread where we tried to get the BMP-2 and BMP-3 included, there was an article in ARMOR magazine some years ago which specifically addressed the M1, Bradley and M109 in MOUT, comparing them with Russian tanks, the BMP-2, Russian SPs, and I believe, the ZSU 23/4. The conclusion was that the Russians were much better off in MOUT than we were, since their weapons could readily engage upper stories on many buildings even when relatively close, while ours could not. The revealing vertical reach diagrams at various ranges were most interesting.

Will see if I can get you the proper citation data, but you may have to resort to the good folks at ARMOR, someone who has a full set of the magazine, or access to a good library.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

John,

The article makes an interesting point. While the Russian/Soviet equipment might be better off, at least in the opion of the magazine, the Soviets went into Grozny and left nearly 100 AFVs burning in the streets. Tactics had a LOT to do with this, but I'd have to say the equipment must be considered a part of the disaster. Exactly how much, tough to say. But clearly the BMPs weren't as survivable as US armor in MOUT situations.

Steve