Apc ammo

[samogon100500]

I don't even care because I haven't played PR in months, but the simple reality is that the Bradley can easily kill BMPs from long range only using APFSDS, while a BMP-3 would probably want to use 100mm HE or ATGM, either to K-kill or mission kill the Bradley. You have no clue what you're talking about and need to research more if you really want to join this debate.

Who can tell,that they kill BMP-3 in reality?Kill - mean burn him,or just make him stun and blind?
In another point - PRs BMP so much unrealistic.Because real 30mm auto cannon may shoot 100 round,untill overheat:
50 round full auto,then 50 small bursts,then 20 minutes cooling down.
PRs one shoots even less that 20 until overheat.

"Introduced in 1988, the A2 received an improved 600 horsepower (447 kW) engine with an HMPT-500-3 Hydromechanical transmission and improved armor (both passive and the ability to mount explosive reactive armor). The new armor protects the Bradley against 30 mm APDS rounds and RPGs (or similar anti-armor weapons)"

Yes, I know. However, APDS is not an area effect weapon. A TC that wanted to really cause a mission kill by taking out tracks and damaging external equipment would load 100mm HE.

Who tell you it.A news anchorman,a internet source?
That true,but not fully.I know one film,called "pentagon wars",not an source,but thats film will tell much more,that I can.
I belive in some characteristics of some russian/US/anyother vehicles,but I never cares,because IRL not fights equal and some properties of vehicles is diffirent.When in desert Bradley matter,in a jungles they will be so much useless.And armor will not help there.

[Murphy]

Sure the BMP-3 is pretty powerful, but one LAT and it's done. The weapon platform is all offense and no defense, most of the time a smart INF squad will beat a BMP-3. Don't send a Bradley into a fight stacked in the favor of the BMP-3, if you're engaging a BMP head on you deserve to blow up.

[Rudd]

I like how a thread about APC ammo levels has turned into a traditional Ru Vs US mud wrestle.

[saXoni]

Can we drop nuclear bombs on each other now?

[ComradeHX]

Can we drop nuclear bombs on each other now?

Wait 60 for JDAM.

[saXoni]

Wait 60 for JDAM.

Roger, tell me when it's loaded.

[tankninja1]

Quick question I asked earlier and it seemed to be ignored, but why does PR use the M2A2 Bradley and not the M2A3 used since 2000? The only reason I can think of is that the Bradley in-game is actually a bad model of the M3 armored cavalry Bradley. The M2A3 Bradley might really help to even the battle ground against other apcs like the BMP 3 which have far better guns but far worse optics as the M2A3 has a 360 degree camera with thermal sights.

Extra comment about the M3 Bradley, it might be something nice for the Americans on Qwai River as it gives a heavy weight punch AND IS AMPHIBIOUS, although this extra amphibious ability is only available because the M3 is less armored than its M2 big brother. (also seems logical because the American unit in Qwai would most likely be a cavalry unit)

[Rudd]

Quick question I asked earlier and it seemed to be ignored, but why does PR use the M2A2 Bradley and not the M2A3 used since 2000? The only reason I can think of is that the Bradley in-game is actually a bad model of the M3 armored cavalry Bradley. The M2A3 Bradley might really help to even the battle ground against other apcs like the BMP 3 which have far better guns but far worse optics as the M2A3 has a 360 degree camera with thermal sights.

because the model we have is a retextured model from USI which was set in the 1st Gulf War I guess.

[Hunt3r]

Quick question I asked earlier and it seemed to be ignored, but why does PR use the M2A2 Bradley and not the M2A3 used since 2000? The only reason I can think of is that the Bradley in-game is actually a bad model of the M3 armored cavalry Bradley. The M2A3 Bradley might really help to even the battle ground against other apcs like the BMP 3 which have far better guns but far worse optics as the M2A3 has a 360 degree camera with thermal sights.

Extra comment about the M3 Bradley, it might be something nice for the Americans on Qwai River as it gives a heavy weight punch AND IS AMPHIBIOUS, although this extra amphibious ability is only available because the M3 is less armored than its M2 big brother. (also seems logical because the American unit in Qwai would most likely be a cavalry unit)

The M2A3 is basically an OP vehicle if implemented realistically, the vehicle has thermal based vehicle tracking and can automatically guide a TOW to designated targets, and the FCS implements the Abrams' dynamic lead compensation. The M3 Bradley is literally nothing more than an M2 with 4 men thrown out and about 4-5 extra TOW tubes put into the vehicle. A TOW-2A would one-shot basically any tank that doesn't have ERA, a TOW-2B would kill basically any tank ever.

The Bradleys have never been amphibious. Yes, I know the A0 variants technically were, but people died just trying to test it out in perfectly still water, much less anything with waves or even a slight current.

I like how a thread about APC ammo levels has turned into a traditional Ru Vs US mud wrestle.

Of course, no one really cares about the APC ammo, but people like to throw in national fervor into the whole APC/IFV capability debate.

[Hunt3r]

[quote=""samogon10"]0500"]Who can tell,that they kill BMP-3 in reality?Kill - mean burn him,or just make him stun and blind?
In another point - PRs BMP so much unrealistic.Because real 30mm auto cannon may shoot 100 round,untill overheat:
50 round full auto,then 50 small bursts,then 20 minutes cooling down.
PRs one shoots even less that 20 until overheat.[/quote]
25mm APFSDS can easily kill BMP-3 from 2km, but after that TOW-2 is needed. BMP-3 only has maybe 30mm of aluminum armor, and every part has something critical, like ammo, crew, etc...

Real 30mm autocannon can shoot 100 rounds until overheat, but then you have permanent degradation of accuracy and change in boresight. PR you can overheat as much as you want, nothing happens.

[quote=""samogon10"]0500"]Who tell you it.A news anchorman,a internet source?
That true,but not fully.I know one film,called "pentagon wars",not an source,but thats film will tell much more,that I can.
I belive in some characteristics of some russian/US/anyother vehicles,but I never cares,because IRL not fights equal and some properties of vehicles is diffirent.When in desert Bradley matter,in a jungles they will be so much useless.And armor will not help there.[/quote]

Bradley Advantages? - Tanknet - Page 5.5

Tanknet is basically as good as it gets, pretty much everyone there has actually worked on or crewed the vehicles discussed in the forum. The Bradley was basically a terrible vehicle at first, but the A2 and A3 incarnations have brought it up to par. The 25mm gun is very weak at anti-infantry though, and needs to be replaced with a 30mm CTA or 40mm CTA autocannon.

Of course armor doesn't matter in close range, but the Bradley's autocannon is more useful, and from the front it will likely win against a BMP. Whoever gets the first penetrating hit wins in this case.

this debate you are just trying to say that all usa equipment is better and now crying that opfor one equipment ir better and its need to be nerf. This is game and it is limited abilities. and stop playing that what if and if happen. you dont know what going to happen in war USA vs RUS maybe they just nuke each other.

No, I'm not. I could list tons of reasons why the Bradley is actually a pretty terrible vehicle, one of which is the fact that the TOW launcher is a weak little POS that would take years to reload if there's no inf in the back, and requires an incredibly dangerous reload procedure where someone could easily toss a grenade into the rear inf compartment and kill everyone, the horribly weak HE in the autocannon, the dangerous ammo storage, the relative lack of mobility and insane height, etc...

But the Bradley is still good. It will kill BMPs, it will kill tanks if in the right situation. It carries people around and has a solid FCS. I'm not demanding that every US vehicle is amazing, I want to see that each vehicle is realistically represented in the game. The BMP-3 should be a fast vehicle with insane firepower at the cost of little protection, the Bradley would be more of a compromise in the firepower and speed department for more armor. Either way, the Bradley should kill the BMP-3 with a 4-5 shots of APFSDS, the BMP-3 should insta-kill Bradleys with their missile. The BMP-3 shouldn't be able to kill a Bradley with APDS in the front at all.

[Hunt3r]

double-post

[40mmrain]

The BMP-3 should be a fast vehicle with insane firepower at the cost of little protection, the Bradley would be more of a compromise in the firepower and speed department for more armor. Either way, the Bradley should kill the BMP-3 with a 4-5 shots of APFSDS, the BMP-3 should insta-kill Bradleys with their missile. The BMP-3 shouldn't be able to kill a Bradley with APDS in the front at all.

I like this. That, and doing something about the long warmup time of the TOW.

Maybe a linebacker variant would be cool..

[ComradeHX]

25mm APFSDS can easily kill BMP-3 from 2km, but after that TOW-2 is needed. BMP-3 only has maybe 30mm of aluminum armor, and every part has something critical, like ammo, crew, etc...

Real 30mm autocannon can shoot 100 rounds until overheat, but then you have permanent degradation of accuracy and change in boresight. PR you can overheat as much as you want, nothing happens.



Bradley Advantages? - Tanknet - Page 5.5

Tanknet is basically as good as it gets, pretty much everyone there has actually worked on or crewed the vehicles discussed in the forum. The Bradley was basically a terrible vehicle at first, but the A2 and A3 incarnations have brought it up to par. The 25mm gun is very weak at anti-infantry though, and needs to be replaced with a 30mm CTA or 40mm CTA autocannon.

Of course armor doesn't matter in close range, but the Bradley's autocannon is more useful, and from the front it will likely win against a BMP. Whoever gets the first penetrating hit wins in this case.
.

I see you linking to some sort of debate about whether Bradley actually has steel plates.
Nothing suggests that Bradley is frontally 30mm APDS-proof. Of course one page later it went off topic to discussion about PKT vs. Nato .308 machineguns.

I also see no source for where you got armour data on BMP-3.
There is also this kind of fat BMP-3:　http://youtu.be/TDndl2qEla4?t=1m
I doubt 5-6 shots of 25mm would kill easily.

[Hunt3r]

I see you linking to some sort of debate about whether Bradley actually has steel plates.
Nothing suggests that Bradley is frontally 30mm APDS-proof. Of course one page later it went off topic to discussion about PKT vs. Nato .308 machineguns.

I also see no source for where you got armour data on BMP-3.
There is also this kind of fat BMP-3:　???????????? ???-3 - YouTube
I doubt 5-6 shots of 25mm would kill easily.

The page talked about the wiki article cite on the M2A2's improved frontal armor and multiple cites that the armor added to the Bradley was fully capable of resisting 30mm APDS, what are you reading?

BMP-3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The data for the BMP-3 frontal armor is right there. 35mm max. That's an Alu alloy, and Alu only has about .6 resistance of RHA. The M919 penetrates 30+mm of armor at 2km, which means that the BMP-3 can easily be penned from the front at long range.

Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology - Page 218

The BMP-3+ has an insane amount of ERA, which is great but autocannons can quickly break through by setting it off or just shooting the turret/top of the hull.

Seriously, get over your Ru bias. The BMP-3 is a great IFV and an incredibly powerful fire support asset to infantry, but it is not the heavily protected vehicle that you think it is. A single shot that touches the ammo that's all over the turret, in the hull, and just below the turret, will kill everyone inside from overpressure and heat.

[ComradeHX]

A single shot that touches the ammo that's all over the turret, in the hull, and just below the turret, will kill everyone inside from overpressure and heat.

Surely you must have seen records of that happening very many times... perhaps you would like to have many drinks of vodka with designers of BMP-3 and have discussion on improvement upon this issue?

BMP-3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The data for the BMP-3 frontal armor is right there. 35mm max. That's an Alu alloy, and Alu only has about .6 resistance of RHA. The M919 penetrates 30+mm of armor at 2km, which means that the BMP-3 can easily be penned from the front at long range.

Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology - Page 218

The BMP-3+ has an insane amount of ERA, which is great but autocannons can quickly break through by setting it off or just shooting the turret/top of the hull.

Seriously, get over your Ru bias. The BMP-3 is a great IFV and an incredibly powerful fire support asset to infantry, but it is not the heavily protected vehicle that you think it is.

No one said BMP-3 is most protected vehicle.
You are citing wikipedia and only basic BMP-3.

Go take off all additional armour on Bradley and see how long that lasts.

Ru bias? What is this, World of Tanks? lol

Also:

M2A2/M3A2

Introduced in 1988, the A2 received an improved 600-horsepower (447 kW) engine with an HMPT-500-3 Hydromechanical transmission and improved armor (both passive and the ability to mount explosive reactive armor). The new armor protects the Bradley against 30 mm APDS rounds and RPGs (or similar anti-armor weapons). Ammunition storage was reorganized and spall liners were added. The M2A2 was qualified to be transported by the C-17 Globemaster III. M2A2s will all eventually be modified to M2A2 ODS or M2A3 standard.



Granted it is Wiki, and they don't give a level of protection in mm's of RHAe, but.......

And

Introduced in 1988, the A2 received an improved 600 horsepower (447 kW) engine with an HMPT-500-3 Hydromechanical transmission and improved armor (both passive and the ability to mount explosive reactive armor). The new armor protects the Bradley against 30 mm APDS rounds and RPGs (or similar anti-armor weapons). Ammunition storage was reorganized and spall liners were added. These upgrades raised the cumulative gross weight of the vehicle to 67,282 lb (30,519 kg).[citation needed]

Cite wikipedia page which needed citation itself...

Why not just edit wiki page and say all side have Lunar titanium armour plating that resists all kinetic weaponry?

You can easily see that at least some part of it is simply made up. It only referred to "RPG." Everyone knows there are more models of RPG than symbolic RPG-7.

[Hunt3r]

Surely you must have seen records of that happening very many times... perhaps you would like to have many drinks of vodka with designers of BMP-3 and have discussion on improvement upon this issue?

Thanks for the skepticism, but in the same vein we might as well say that the T-62 never had ammo rack explosion issues, because it never happened at all. If you look at the image, there's ammo racks sitting right underneath and inside the turret. What isn't shown is that there's also an autoloader filled with shells right under the turret.

No one said BMP-3 is most protected vehicle.

You are citing wikipedia and only basic BMP-3.

Go take off all additional armour on Bradley and see how long that lasts.

Ru bias? What is this, World of Tanks? lol

Also:
And

Cite wikipedia page which needed citation itself...

Why not just edit wiki page and say all side have Lunar titanium armour plating that resists all kinetic weaponry?

You can easily see that at least some part of it is simply made up. It only referred to "RPG." Everyone knows there are more models of RPG than symbolic RPG-7.

I am citing wikipedia because it's reasonable, and you decided to ignore the discussion that has already taken place. Yes, you could take off the additional armor, which is all of two side panels prior to BUSK upgrade. Frontal protection would still be on the order of 30mm APDS.

The BMP-3+ you want to talk about is covered in ERA for a reason. It will stop some ATGMs, but when 25mm APFSDS is just pecking away, blowing off ERA panels, penetration is almost guaranteed. If it's NERA, then all it takes is a single TOW-2A to K-Kill a BMP. Either way, the BMP will need to employ ATGM if they want to actually stand a chance of taking out a Bradley head on. Simple as that. If you want to keep debating, that's fine, but keep in mind that Russians are not magically better at engineering, and as such two vehicles with same purpose will end up at about the same weight. Armor is heavy.

[samogon100500]

Of course armor doesn't matter in close range, but the Bradley's autocannon is more useful, and from the front it will likely win against a BMP. Whoever gets the first penetrating hit wins in this case.

Thats another reason.PR doesn't have long distances due fog disallow to shoot even on 1km.

Bradley Advantages? - Tanknet - Page 5.5

Tanknet is basically as good as it gets, pretty much everyone there has actually worked on or crewed the vehicles discussed in the forum.

Heh.Even this forum isn't fully correct.I may link such source in russian,they got many facts about both vehicles,but it's still holywar.

No one said BMP-3 is most protected vehicle.

Not actually,most protected is an M1A2 Abrams,but without service they will ride.... 500km
Cuz engine eat so much dust,that without cleaning they killing yourself...
But to remove engine need special equplement

if they will be destroyed,tanks would be not problem

But in fack,bradley better armored,but not much,that hunter trying to say.

[ComradeHX]

I am citing wikipedia because it's reasonable, and you decided to ignore the discussion that has already taken place. Yes, you could take off the additional armor, which is all of two side panels prior to BUSK upgrade. Frontal protection would still be on the order of 30mm APDS.

The BMP-3+ you want to talk about is covered in ERA for a reason. It will stop some ATGMs, but when 25mm APFSDS is just pecking away, blowing off ERA panels, penetration is almost guaranteed. If it's NERA, then all it takes is a single TOW-2A to K-Kill a BMP. Either way, the BMP will need to employ ATGM if they want to actually stand a chance of taking out a Bradley head on. Simple as that. If you want to keep debating, that's fine, but keep in mind that Russians are not magically better at engineering, and as such two vehicles with same purpose will end up at about the same weight. Armor is heavy.

Discussion? Some internet "some one who claims to be/have been working with military vehicles?" Clearly they were having argument because they all claimed to be correct.

Funny you would remind others that Russians are not magically better at engineering. So apparently everyone else is so great at engineering that would be able to make better design for BMP-3 so it would not have ammo have chance of exploding when it is hit?(face it, a hit that go that far into vehicle is not going to be good, exploding ammo or not)
You are one who is saying Bradley this bradley that...

Also, is a EastBloc counterpart to TOW-2a not going to do anything to bradley?
No, it still kill bradley. There is no advantage if you compare those. BMP-3 still has a ton of guns and Bradley still has puny 25mm cannon.

Having slightly better armour does not mean much.

BMP-3 has range of weapon for just about anything it will see; it is better than bradly that only has tiny guns + missile.

If you really want to compare armour; both do not fare so well against a well-placed AT weapon.
Uparmouring Bradley is just for bullying 3rd world country.

You suggested to make Bradly kill BMP-3 with cannon easily while BMP-3 had to read ATGM(which, when fixed, takes many seconds and will die first before is ready). While Bradley still has option of one-shot-killing BMP-3 with ATGM...

Not Western-biased at all...

[Hunt3r]

Discussion? Some internet "some one who claims to be/have been working with military vehicles?" Clearly they were having argument because they all claimed to be correct.

Yeah, because tanknet is totally filled with armchair commandos, not people that actually served anywhere from the days of the M48 and T-55 to the current gen equipment.

Funny you would remind others that Russians are not magically better at engineering. So apparently everyone else is so great at engineering that would be able to make better design for BMP-3 so it would not have ammo have chance of exploding when it is hit?(face it, a hit that go that far into vehicle is not going to be good, exploding ammo or not)
You are one who is saying Bradley this bradley that...

The answer is no, I don't think any country would be able to make a better BMP-3. Better protected ammo (under the floor of the vehicle, out in the rear turret storage) takes significantly longer to reload, and only the BMP-3 really allows true under armor ATGM reloads. Swim capability was dropped from the M2A1 and never discussed again, etc etc...

The BMP is good in some ways, bad in others. The Bradley is good in some ways, bad in others. You want the Bradley to be bad at almost everything, and the BMP to be good at almost everything. The Bradley should be easily killed, have a weak cannon, and a powerful TOW that can only be used if the crew knows where to aim well before the threat ever shows up. The BMP should be well armored against autocannon, have an autocannon that will completely destroy any other IFV in a head on fight with autocannon, have a 100mm cannon that is the most powerful anti-inf direct fire weapon in game, have an ATGM that can be shot on the move and immediately after stopping, and have two front facing MGs with accurate optics and zoom.

I want realism, and I want balance. In this case, making the Bradley and BMP have more realistic firepower would go a long way to balancing out maps like Kashan where the Bradleys are basically just redeployable static TOW emplacements instead of capable tank destroyers that massively increase fire support and anti-AFV capabilities of the team.

Bradleys and every other IFV are filled with compromises. The BMP-3 chose firepower and speed over protection and dismount capability. The Bradley chose protection and firepower over speed and concealment.

Also, is a EastBloc counterpart to TOW-2a not going to do anything to bradley?
No, it still kill bradley. There is no advantage if you compare those. BMP-3 still has a ton of guns and Bradley still has puny 25mm cannon.

Having slightly better armour does not mean much.

BMP-3 has range of weapon for just about anything it will see; it is better than bradly that only has tiny guns + missile.

If you really want to compare armour; both do not fare so well against a well-placed AT weapon.
Uparmouring Bradley is just for bullying 3rd world country.

You suggested to make Bradly kill BMP-3 with cannon easily while BMP-3 had to read ATGM(which, when fixed, takes many seconds and will die first before is ready). While Bradley still has option of one-shot-killing BMP-3 with ATGM...

Not Western-biased at all...

The BMP-3 has a lot of guns, the 100mm and 30mm for AFV engagement. The 30mm is good against light vehicles and quick inf engagement, the 100mm is good at anything that stays still long enough for HE to hit, and against heavy armor with ATGM. The Bradley has a 25mm and TOW. The 25mm is good for quick inf engagement and light to medium vehicles, the TOW is for heavy vehicles. As for infantry in the open... let's just call artillery, the TOW is useless because HEAT is directed impact, not diffuse.

Uparmored Bradley is to stop it from being killed by RPGs and autocannon. No, TOW-2As will not be stopped, or any truly powerful HEAT rocket/missile. Only western MBTs with their insane 70t weights can pull that off, and only on the front turret.

The Bradley should easily kill the BMP-3 with APFSDS within 5-10 seconds, it's only reasonable. The Bradley, to use ATGM, must STOP and STAY STILL on a relative FLAT surface for about 5 seconds to be ready. The BMP-3, if the ATGM is in the barrel, or if the barrel is empty and the ATGM on the autoloader, will be able to stop and fire ATGM immediately.

The Bradley will only have an advantage in close, and only if the BMP is caught unprepared. From far away, unless the BMP stupidly charged right into a waiting Bradley with TOW ready, that BMP will win, because the APFSDS is hilariously inaccurate at long range and in the time it takes to kill the BMP, a competent BMP gunner would have smacked an ATGM into the Bradley and sent the turret flying years ago.

Even if the BMP only has APDS ready, all it takes to achieve the kill is a flank or rear shot. From there, it will still have the massive ROF advantage and kill within 7 seconds.

[DieVoorJe91]

F*ck all this and use a CV90....