Jump to content
enigma6584

Armor Strength of BMP-1 and BMP-2

Recommended Posts

Does anyone have a hard time killing BMPs? I don't know if something has been changed in this verison or the one before but it takes a hell of a lot of shots to kill them with 25mm and above. I just started playing the new recon at Kahfji scenario and basically couldn't kill them at ranges as close as 450 meters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just tested a easy firing range. 6 BMP-1 and 6 BMP-2. side profile at 1km firing NZLAV 25mm APFSDS. on average it tocked 4.4 rounds for a kill. Sounds OK to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of course depends on WHERE you hit them. There are vulnerable areas, and then some which are relatively well protected. Finally, a statement about just one, or a handful of incidents cannot substantiate the suspicion that something is wrong. You have to look at a large group of vehicles that all get hit in the same area to get a reliable estimate for the median and the standarddeviation of the number of rounds needed to kill a certain vehicle X with ammunition Y at range Z.

In other words, luck will play a role, too.

Which is the lesson that we try to transport. If you are referring to statements like, say, "three hits are needed to consider a target killed", these are typical live fire range rules. They may even be based on historical battle damage investigations or other modeling and simulation results. But what these rules of thumb fail to transport is that there's always the odd chance that more or fewer rounds are needed, and unlike cardboard silhouettes real vehicles have different vulnerabilities in different places. Cardboard or "woodframe with canvas" designd - well, you ALWAYS make a hole in them to allow the observation whether you hit, and that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you're hitting them in the front, since the engine is in the front, it could be the engine is soaking up a part of the rounds.

it also depends a bit on what round you're using. the M791 won't be as effective as the M919.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of course depends on WHERE you hit them. There are vulnerable areas, and then some which are relatively well protected.

That's why I love this sim. I hit the tracks-they spin and fire back. No hit points here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone have a hard time killing BMPs? I don't know if something has been changed in this verison or the one before but it takes a hell of a lot of shots to kill them with 25mm and above. I just started playing the new recon at Kahfji scenario and basically couldn't kill them at ranges as close as 450 meters.

Try shooting the sides at least. The front is pretty well protected, even from M791, mainly due to sloping armor and the engine compartment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can confirm that. BMPs are ridiculously too well protected. I played one instant mission with CV9035. It took me on average nine 35 mm APFSDS rounds to kill one enemy vehicle. Surprised I created simple test scenario in mission editor: firing at BMP-2 from 1,5 km distance at frontal arcs of course from 25 mm, 30 mm, 35 mm, 40 mm autocannons using rounds of various types. Here you are my results:

25 mm Bushmaster I:

- APFSDS:

1. nothing

2. gunner

3. driver

4. FCS

5. nothing

6. destroyed

- APDS round:

- first eight hits - nothing

9. driver

- next twenty hits - nothing

30. gunner

31. nothing

30 mm Bushmaster II:

- APFSDS round:

1. nothing

2. destroyed

- MP-T round - completely ineffective, 15 hits with no damage

35 mm Bushmaster III:

- FAPDS round

1. commander, radio

2. immobilized

3. FCS

4. nothing

5. nothing

6. driver

7. destroyed

- APDS-T round:

1. gunner

2. nothing

3. nothing

4. immobilized

5. nothing

6. nothing

7. nothing

8. commander

9. nothing

10. nothing

11. destroyed

- APFSDS round:

1. nothing

2. immobilized

3. nothing

4. destroyed

- ABM rounds can destroy only FCS

40 mm Bofors:

- newest APFSDS:

1. destroyed

- oldest APFSDS:

1. gunner

2. nothing

3. radio

4. nothing

5. nothing

- PFPPX round - very rarely can destroy BMP-2 with shrapnels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone have a hard time killing BMPs?

Not confirm that they are...but I was just thinking this during a recent mission.

I emptied my Brads entire load of KE and HEAT(mean HE) on 3 of them at 1400 meters.

None were destroyed and 2 managed to keep moving.

Edited by sabot_ready

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can confirm that. BMPs are ridiculously too well protected.

Well, good news: we checked both BMPs over and there actually is a problem with the engine, it seems that it is not getting damaged/disabled properly (from lower power autocannon rounds). We will address that in a future patch I hope.

Other than that, which would be the only real issue with them AFAICT, I can confirm that they are not "ridiculously too well protected", when it comes to actually killing the vehicle (it is working as it should). Nothing has really changed from the old BMP protection levels in any way, except for the additional detail in the damage model and the addition of the engine compartment and engine (and the error with the engine damage as mentioned above). In the past the engine area was far too weak and under represented, and this is no longer the case. I imagine that the reason why it seems that the BMP protection is too high is because the engine is soaking up fire without damage from the lesser autocannon rounds with no damage, which is now corrected.

Not confirm that they are...but I was just thinking this during a recent mission.

I emptied my Brads entire load of KE and HEAT on 3 of them at 1400 meters.

Non were destroyed and 2 managed to keep moving.

A Bradley doesn't have HEAT, so you must mean HE ammo, but HE would be all but completely useless on both BMPs so it is better not fire that ammo at it (just something to keep in mind). The default KE ammo of the Bradley is the M791, which we already said will not have any spectacular success against the front of the BMP. Yes, I can imagine that it is frustrating to fire all the M791 at the engine area not not at least disable the vehicle's engine -- but at least we found and fixed the issue. :)

Edited by Volcano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BMP-1 armor thickness data according to Chris Foss, "Jane's Armour and Artillery 2005–2006" (recalculated to vertical RHA armor plate thickness):

- gun mantlet - 26-33 mm

- turret front - 31 mm

- upper hull front - 41 mm

- hull lower front - 35 mm

- hull upper side - 16 mm

- hull lower side- 18 mm

- hull top - 6 mm

As one can see BMP-1 is practically unarmored vehicle against fire from 25-40 mm Western autocannons using modern anti-armor round. According to SBWiki their muzzle penetration is:

- 25 mm APDS - 60 mm

- 25 mm APFSDS - 100 mm

- 30 mm APFSDS - 110 mm

- 35 mm APFSDS - 170 mm

- 35 mm FAPDS - 120 mm

- 35 mm APDS - 110 mm

- 40 mm APFSDS - 140-170 mm depending on version

Of course penetration of those rounds drops with range but no so significantly to save BMP.

Edited by Sky Hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMP-1 armor thickness data according to Chris Foss, "Jane's Armour and Artillery 2005–2006" (recalculated to vertical RHA armor plate thickness):

armour and 25mm round values

Of course penetration of those rounds drops with range but no so significantly to save BMP.

we use these figures in SB. as already stated the engine provides significant protection, and the engine compartment is

a large portion of the front hull.

here's some pictures to give you an idea:

bmp-1.jpg

bmp-2.jpg

BMP-IMG_3605.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/theadventurouseye/5416233442/

that engine and gearbox provides more than just 20mm of protection...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, as Volcano indicated, the protection effect of the engine is over-modelled, I hope this gets adressed in a hotpatch and not a patch with the next upgrade in 12 or 15 months. BMPs are part of so many scenarios and them being so unrealistically difficult to kill would throw down the balance of so many scnarios so fundamentally that this bug, if it is that, really should be counted as a major issue. A problem with the buzshmaster truck or the Mercedes cars would be something that could wait until the next upgrade. Trouble with the BMPs - imo - not.

Oh, and I subscribe to the players not liking the BMP damage model now. I thought it was me, but now that I read that others see it as problematic too, I feel confirmed with my initial suspicion that there is a problem - I too have big problems too often to kill BMPs. It just does not feel right, and believable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I read AARs, the more armor issues I find.

As for BMP armor protection, that is not just frontal engine compartment issue. Look at those data taken from my latest Instant Action mission (CV9040C firing Slpprj90LK/05 APFSDS rounds only):

- firing at BMP-2 from 1700 m:

1. front - driver

2. front - commander

3. front - destroyed

- firing at BMP-2 from 1750 m:

1. left side - nothing

2. front - commander

3. front - nothing

4. left side - nothing

5. left side - FCS

6. left side - nothing

- firing at T-72M1 from 1800 m

1. left side - nothing

2. left side - nothing

3. left side - nothing

4. left side - nothing

5. left side - nothing

So also hitting BMP and T-72M1 side armor often don't cause any damage! Moreover look at CV9040C armor protection. I was shelled by T-72M1 with BM-32 APFSDS rounds from 1650 m distance. Here you are results:

1. front - nothing

2. left side - nothing

3. left side - commander

All that becomes very weird... :(

bmp2fueltank.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I was going to make a video of my problems with killing these things and post up on youtube but since reading others have confirmed problems including a response from Esim...I see there is no need. Good to see it wasn't me going crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If, as Volcano indicated, the protection effect of the engine is over-modelled, I hope this gets adressed in a hotpatch and not a patch with the next upgrade in 12 or 15 months. BMPs are part of so many scenarios and them being so unrealistically difficult to kill would throw down the balance of so many scnarios so fundamentally that this bug, if it is that, really should be counted as a major issue. A problem with the buzshmaster truck or the Mercedes cars would be something that could wait until the next upgrade. Trouble with the BMPs - imo - not.

Oh, and I subscribe to the players not liking the BMP damage model now. I thought it was me, but now that I read that others see it as problematic too, I feel confirmed with my initial suspicion that there is a problem - I too have big problems too often to kill BMPs. It just does not feel right, and believable.

I agree with this. BMPs are in virtually every scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The more I read AARs, the more armor issues I find.

WHERE are you hitting?

depending on WHERE on the front, and WHERE on the side you hit, the effects will vary a lot.

also, the issue with the engine wasn't that hitting the engine compartment didn't kill the BMP. the issue was that hits in the engine didn't immobilize the BMP.

when it is fixed, it'll mean the BMP's will be immobilized when hit in the engine compartment,

but it will still be able to return fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMP-1 armor thickness data according to Chris Foss, "Jane's Armour and Artillery 2005–2006" (recalculated to vertical RHA armor plate thickness):

- gun mantlet - 26-33 mm

- turret front - 31 mm

- upper hull front - 41 mm

- hull lower front - 35 mm

- hull upper side - 16 mm

- hull lower side- 18 mm

- hull top - 6 mm

As one can see BMP-1 is practically unarmored vehicle against fire from 25-40 mm Western autocannons using modern anti-armor round. According to SBWiki their muzzle penetration is:

- 25 mm APDS - 60 mm

- 25 mm APFSDS - 100 mm

- 30 mm APFSDS - 110 mm

- 35 mm APFSDS - 170 mm

- 35 mm FAPDS - 120 mm

- 35 mm APDS - 110 mm

- 40 mm APFSDS - 140-170 mm depending on version

Of course penetration of those rounds drops with range but no so significantly to save BMP.

Believe me, we know the armor of the BMPs, and the current armor values are not going to change. Apparently you think the rounds aren't penetrating, but they are. The rounds are passing through like a tin can, UNLESS they hit the engine block, gearbox, or fuel tank. Apparently some of you believe that penetration = kill, and I suppose some other wonderful games have reinforced this horrible stereotype, but we operate on a more realistic level.

In a previous post, which I now edited/summarized, I described in detail what SB considers a "kill". I will not go into that detail again since I thought it wasn't necessary (and I don't want to retype it twice), but basically, what you think constitutes as a kill is not what is a kill in SB. There is a reason why BMPs and other light armored PC / IFVs are engaged with HEAT rounds, or *saturated* with low caliber autocannon.

If, as Volcano indicated, the protection effect of the engine is over-modelled, I hope this gets adressed in a hotpatch and not a patch with the next upgrade in 12 or 15 months. BMPs are part of so many scenarios and them being so unrealistically difficult to kill would throw down the balance of so many scnarios so fundamentally that this bug, if it is that, really should be counted as a major issue. A problem with the buzshmaster truck or the Mercedes cars would be something that could wait until the next upgrade. Trouble with the BMPs - imo - not.

Oh, and I subscribe to the players not liking the BMP damage model now. I thought it was me, but now that I read that others see it as problematic too, I feel confirmed with my initial suspicion that there is a problem - I too have big problems too often to kill BMPs. It just does not feel right, and believable.

Here we go again. The sky is falling. ;) Unfortunately you will have to live with the engine issue for a while until the patch. Sorry, if it bothers you guys then swap your vehicles out or stop shooting the engine area or, if it REALLY bothers you, swap them out with BMDs for the time being. It WILL get fixed though, and a patch is probably closer than you think.

Edited by Volcano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WHERE are you hitting?

depending on WHERE on the front, and WHERE on the side you hit, the effects will vary a lot.

For instance I hit place where BMP main fuel tank is located but instead of setting BMP on fire it still runs ahead and returns fire. Is it fueled by water or maybe M919 penetrators are made with lumber in place of pyrophoric DU?

also, the issue with the engine wasn't that hitting the engine compartment didn't kill the BMP. the issue was that hits in the engine didn't immobilize the BMP. when it is fixed, it'll mean the BMP's will be immobilized when hit in the engine compartment, but it will still be able to return fire.

I advice you to reconsider consequences of depleted uranium round penetrating BMP frontal armor and hitting (most possibly multiple times in salvo mode!) the BMP engine compartment. Return fire? Buddy - BMP-1 crew should escape as quickly as hell from such BMP! :biggrin:

Also you, Vulcano? Do you think those anti-armor rounds present in SBPro are some primitive AP rounds from before WW2 era? Do you really think APFSDS DU or FAPDS rounds only pierce trough BMP armor back to fro and that's over? No, they do not have to hit something important on their way to heavy damage BMP and its crew. They cause very huge internal damage thanks to their specific construction. Read a bit mode about it...

Sorry, I don't have time to discuss and explain basics here. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also you, Vulcano? Do you think those anti-armor rounds present in SBPro are some primitive AP rounds from before WW2 era? Do you really think APFSDS DU or FAPDS rounds only pierce trough BMP armor back to fro and that's over? No, they do not have to hit something important on their way to damage BMP and its crew. They cause very huge internal damage thanks to their specific construction. Read a bit mode about it...

Sorry, I don't have time to discuss and explain basics here. :(

Calm down please, and knock off the condescending tone. We aren't new at this sort of thing, and we are used to people stirring up trouble over something learned from a video game or off the History Channel. With all due respect, you have no idea how the damage model works, you are coming up with your own conclusions; I never said it pierces to and fro without causing damage unless a component is hit, I was implying that hitting internal components is the best way to cause component damage. There are such things as indirect damages from spall (IRL and in SB), but I guess you feel like you need to educate us on that too.

Know that just as many people like the new BMPs as those that dislike it, so this isn't the case of the squeakiest wheel. I told you exactly what will be fixed on it in the next update, unless we find otherwise in additional review; if you are not satisfied with how they get "destroyed" then I don't know what to tell you other than go find/play a game where the BMPs die in the manner in which suits your opinions best. Harsh perhaps, but I just don't know what else can be said if someone still is not satisfied even after we are reviewing it...

Edited by Volcano
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there's no need to turn up the heat about this. We will certainly look into the damage model and run our own tests. But it isn't as if we sent the models out without our own quality assurance, and we also have well-considered rules by which we set certain damage likelihoods for components.

Fuel tanks, for example, have substantial protection value against impacting munitions (see the appendix on armor technology in our user manual). However, we will critically review the fire hazard likelihoods for these fuel cells, given that in earlier generation AFVs like the BMP they are not foamed out to prevent fuel/air conflagrations. That is an area that might warrant some reconsideration.

But in general Volcano is right - there is no reason to condemn the fundamentals of our current BMP model. It is about as good as we can make it, and if that doesn't satisfy your expectations, there's two possible explanations for it. One, that the model is flawed. The other, that it is a matter of unrealistic expectations. The BMP certainly isn't thickly armored, but it's not as if its Soviet designers were clueless numpties either. The very shallow glacis angle in fact does provide reasonably good protection at medium ranges. The protection is further improved by a specific weakness of our model of projectile/armor interaction, that we don't fully model t/d- and backplate effects. This is a simplification in our model which usually hasn't very large impact on the penetration process in relation to the relatively large dimension of thick armor plates, but in the case of relatively thin skinned vehicles like the BMP they can become a more prominent factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may "cool off" now.

"Sky Hunter" had been borrowing one of my licenses (for the last 2 weeks or so) to look at SB Pro PE before purchase.

He's just thanked me for the opportunity but has decided against purchase so I guess we wont see him again (or at least until after the BMP "hotfix" - if there is one).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah no.

I've "translated" it (terms like "unrealistic", "fatally flawed", etc. were in his original message) so as to not further excite things (didn't see the point since he was going).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah no.

I've "translated" it (terms like "unrealistic", "fatally flawed", etc. were in his original message) so as to not further excite things (didn't see the point since he was going).

OK, fair enough. ;)

It is unfortunate that he decided to move on, but someone can't expect beat on the war drum constantly and not expect tensions to rise. Oh well it seems like this thread/topic might have been his planned swan song anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...