BMP-3 - The IFV with the firepower of a light tank

[Nope 10,634]

4 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

What is the penetration of the Rh202?

 

Usually I assume the APDS penetrates around 80mm RHA point-blank, but that's a gut feeling. AP shot on the other hand has way less penetration, as in almost half.

[Admiral_Aruon 2,264]

3 hours ago, Nope said:

 

its a good thing fuel tanks integrate very well with the armor system in-game

 

oh wait

 

xaxaxaxaxaxaxa is patented liquid stalinium armor tovarish.

 

1 hour ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

yes, lets put a turreted, 600mm pen modern ATGM, fuel tank armored, AFV at 8.0, that's what this game needs.... 

 

T114 has 380mm at 6.7 and is a glass cannon.

 

BMP-1 isn't much different AND can chuck early ATGMs at 7.3.

 

at 8.0 and above the BMP-3 will almost never be downtiered, and will almost always be uptiered to face XYZ-70s. and in the event of a downtier it's still just barely armored enough to survive .50cals. anything can kill it at 7.0. and ATGM HEAT-FS is still sometimes dodgy if you don't hit center mass or directly on an ammo rack.

plus the RakJpz HOT was never all that controversial back when it was at 8.3 despite having insane pen. with weapons like these armor doesn't really mean much.

[RefrigerRaider 563]

does this thing fire heat shells?

If not, then its basically an IT-1 trading its armor for a 6s reloading 600mm atgm slinging autoloading cannon, better mobility, swimming ability, and a 30mm gun for light target and AA, and with a 22 round capacity?!

 

 

This is actually the closest counterpart the Soviets for the upcoming German Begleitpanzer 57! which also come with an autocannon with atgm ability.

Edited November 1, 2017 by RefrigerRaider

[Nope 10,634]

6 hours ago, RefrigerRaider said:

does this thing fire heat shells?

 

no

[WulfPack 1,693]

8 hours ago, RefrigerRaider said:

does this thing fire heat shells?

No. The 100-MM gun only has HE-Frag and ATGMs.

8 hours ago, RefrigerRaider said:

6s reloading 600mm atgm slinging autoloading cannon,

The gunner has to hand load the the ATGMs, since they are not stored in the automatic loader.

[Endwarcb 425]

i approve

 

1+

[CoMurey2 131]

OMG! when is it going to be in the game?!

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

49 minutes ago, CoMurey2 said:

OMG! when is it going to be in the game?!

 

Never, because there are no declassified counterparts from other nations, eg. M2 Bradley, FV 510 Warrior, etc. 

Edited November 4, 2017 by xX_Lord_James_Xx

[RefrigerRaider 563]

well, then theres always unique units that could complement the faction, it doesnt have to be a mirror counterpart. like these guys

 

[kev2go 5,112]

20 hours ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

Never, because there are no declassified counterparts from other nations, eg. M2 Bradley, FV 510 Warrior, etc. 

 

Neither did gajin have exact armor for the Type 87 SPAA. which is very weak armored but has compositires 

 

M2  Bradley has Paper Armor. Its only pwerfull enough to withstand 50 and maybe weak auto cannons.

 

M2 and M2A1 have aliunium armor ( estimated to be only 1 inch  of thickness) , While the M2A2 has a second layer of armor to create spaced armor of the turret and Frontal area. ANd the M2A2 has option of being fitted with  1st gen ERA ( which would work like ERA on M60A1 only negating 1 shot of Heat but not other ammuntion types).

 

Really the M2s armor is only thick enough to withstand 50 cal and maybe some  light cannons.  the spaced armor of the M2A2 was really just give extra protection from enemy IFV autocannons annd still does not make it  capable enough of slugging hits from Tanks. it stands no chance of surviving any penetrations anywhere.

 

So If gajin can add the Type 87 they could go for the M2.

Edited November 5, 2017 by kev2go

[RefrigerRaider 563]

true, if armor is weak enough, we can guesstimate more accurately the protection level.

[CoMurey2 131]

it doesn't matter if the Light Tank, in this case the BMP-3 lack Armour or not because its a light tank! its a IFV! its best advantages is mobility and armament! So, what do you expect of a light tank?!

[Nope 10,634]

2 minutes ago, CoMurey2 said:

it doesn't matter if the Light Tank, in this case the BMP-3 lack Armour or not because its a light tank! its a IFV! its best advantages is mobility and armament! So, what do you expect of a light tank?!

 

The fuel tank is part of the armor and serves to make it rather strong against autocannon APFSDS. This is quite a problem when considering how fuel tanks work in-game.

[CoMurey2 131]

2 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

The fuel tank is part of the armor and serves to make it rather strong against autocannon APFSDS. This is quite a problem when considering how fuel tanks work in-game.

what is the problem, can you explain in detail please?

 

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

3 hours ago, CoMurey2 said:

what is the problem, can you explain in detail please?

 

 

Fuel tanks in game have the tendency to randomly eat a shell (e.g. Kpz-70, T-55A). When struck in a segment of armor that has a fuel tank behind it, there is a random chance that your shell will just disappear inside the fuel tank, especially if you're shooting HEAT. IRL, liquid is not a magical, anti-HEAT system (neither is spaced armor) and will only stop shells from penetrating if those shells already struggle to penetrate the armor.

 

Please stop believing this misconception that a fuel tank will stop a shell. 

[Cadianguardian 61]

54 minutes ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

Fuel tanks in game have the tendency to randomly eat a shell (e.g. Kpz-70, T-55A). When struck in a segment of armor that has a fuel tank behind it, there is a random chance that your shell will just disappear inside the fuel tank, especially if you're shooting HEAT. IRL, liquid is not a magical, anti-HEAT system (neither is spaced armor) and will only stop shells from penetrating if those shells already struggle to penetrate the armor.

 

Please stop believing this misconception that a fuel tank will stop a shell. 

Then why Leo 2 uses fuel tank as additional armour?. I agree that shouldnt absorb overpenning jet but low density is actually good at disrupting jet.

[Nope 10,634]

4 hours ago, Cadianguardian said:

Then why Leo 2 uses fuel tank as additional armour?. I agree that shouldnt absorb overpenning jet but low density is actually good at disrupting jet.

 

It really depends on how much fuel is added. Apparently diesel has 1/7th of the effectiveness of steel, but I'm not too sure how this applies to all types of KE. If it were in WWII using fuel tanks as armor would have been an extremely stupid idea since unless the tank is full there's a serious fire hazard. The BMP-3's fuel tanks are filled with an inert gas last I checked.

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

7 hours ago, Cadianguardian said:

Then why Leo 2 uses fuel tank as additional armour?. I agree that shouldnt absorb overpenning jet but low density is actually good at disrupting jet.

 

Think of modern MBTs using “fuel tank armor” as a spall liner: it’s not meant to stop anything except fragments. It’s the main armor’s job to stop the good majority of the shell, and if the main armor fails to stop it, well, you’re SOL. 

 

And as Nope said: diesel is only 1/7 the effectiveness of RHA, and gasoline is even lower (don’t know about jet fuel though). Basically, if you have 1 meter of diesel, it will only reduce the penetration of a HEAT jet by about 140mm, and less for kinetic rounds, and most fuel tanks are not 1 meter thick.... 

Edited November 6, 2017 by xX_Lord_James_Xx

[CoMurey2 131]

13 hours ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

Fuel tanks in game have the tendency to randomly eat a shell (e.g. Kpz-70, T-55A). When struck in a segment of armor that has a fuel tank behind it, there is a random chance that your shell will just disappear inside the fuel tank, especially if you're shooting HEAT. IRL, liquid is not a magical, anti-HEAT system (neither is spaced armor) and will only stop shells from penetrating if those shells already struggle to penetrate the armor.

 

Please stop believing this misconception that a fuel tank will stop a shell. 

dear! I never said any thing about Fuel tanks...

[Nope 10,634]

6 hours ago, CoMurey2 said:

dear! I never said any thing about Fuel tanks...

 

You did actually, though in an indirect manner. By referencing the armor of the BMP-3, it is not stupid to assume that you would also reference the fuel tanks, for as mentioned on the first page, the BMP-3 has its fuel tanks in front for the purpose of increasing armor protection.

 

 

This is why any tank whose engine compartment is in the front (case of all IFVs really as well as the Merkava) shouldn't be implemented. WWII tanks that have the transmission in front do not usually rely on it for protection, so they're off scot-free. On the other hand, when vehicles depend on the engine compartment for protection, this combined with the iffy module system would make the armor extremely inconsistent if not sometimes stronger than MBT armor if the fuel tanks are black holes.

[CoMurey2 131]

On 11/6/2017 at 2:18 AM, Nope said:

 

The fuel tank is part of the armor and serves to make it rather strong against autocannon APFSDS. This is quite a problem when considering how fuel tanks work in-game.

 

On 11/6/2017 at 6:15 AM, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

Fuel tanks in game have the tendency to randomly eat a shell (e.g. Kpz-70, T-55A). When struck in a segment of armor that has a fuel tank behind it, there is a random chance that your shell will just disappear inside the fuel tank, especially if you're shooting HEAT. IRL, liquid is not a magical, anti-HEAT system (neither is spaced armor) and will only stop shells from penetrating if those shells already struggle to penetrate the armor.

 

Please stop believing this misconception that a fuel tank will stop a shell. 

Ok, I agree with you, that all tank's components need to be represented with correct physics models. but again IFVs and Light tanks are not heavy on Armour, especially in the 70s/80s... So. what I'm saying is even in real life IFVs and Light Tanks are not expected to fight face to face with heavy tanks (against big cannons).

 

Light Tanks: used to be in a role of scouts and fighting along side with Infantry. And off course IFVs are transporters with weak armour and small-medium size weaponry.

Now, In game IFVs/Light Tanks are good for scouting and flanking the enemy.... and not face to face against MBTs engagements...

 

So. if fuel tanks mean that it will slow or prevent the BMP-3 and all similar vehicle from being introduced to the game, then I rather say disable the Fuel Tanks from offering any kind of protection at all...

 

On 11/4/2017 at 6:44 PM, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

Never, because there are no declassified counterparts from other nations, eg. M2 Bradley, FV 510 Warrior, etc. 

 

that's a big problem... but for that maybe it can be in the game as premium... and I'll buy it for sure.

[WulfPack 1,693]

2 hours ago, CoMurey2 said:

that's a big problem... but for that maybe it can be in the game as premium... and I'll buy it for sure.

I don't think that would work.

[CoMurey2 131]

40 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

I don't think that would work.

Well, at least we can hope... XD

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

2 hours ago, CoMurey2 said:

 

that's a big problem... but for that maybe it can be in the game as premium... and I'll buy it for sure.

 

Too modern to be premium yet, and please don't give the snail any ideas.....

[Nope 10,634]

4 hours ago, CoMurey2 said:

 

Ok, I agree with you, that all tank's components need to be represented with correct physics models. but again IFVs and Light tanks are not heavy on Armour, especially in the 70s/80s... So. what I'm saying is even in real life IFVs and Light Tanks are not expected to fight face to face with heavy tanks (against big cannons).

 

Light Tanks: used to be in a role of scouts and fighting along side with Infantry. And off course IFVs are transporters with weak armour and small-medium size weaponry.

Now, In game IFVs/Light Tanks are good for scouting and flanking the enemy.... and not face to face against MBTs engagements...

 

So. if fuel tanks mean that it will slow or prevent the BMP-3 and all similar vehicle from being introduced to the game, then I rather say disable the Fuel Tanks from offering any kind of protection at all...

 

And here's the problem: the BMP-3 was made to be pretty damn well-armored against autocannon rounds. Stuff like 25mm APDS from the M242 would do nothing to the front unless the turret is hit. The hardened steel in front and the optimum hardness steel (something like 300 BHN) behind would not be able to stop such strong rounds on their own, hence why the fuel tanks are in front as they add a decent amount of protection without adding extra weight that could hinder the IFV's role. And according to the guys making the 40mm CTA (very strong autocannon made to destroy the toughest of IFVs without completely negating rate of fire or suppression), the BMP-3's armor protection really isn't a joke (p.13).

 

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2002/gun/leslie.pdf

 

If the protection level isn't "haha it paper why bother looking for sources" partially because what would be considered a module in WT increases protection, then we have some serious issues with the implementation of the BMP-3. See, I don't brush off armor just because it's supposedly light.