> Los wrote:
Once through
> the rocket motor kicks in. It is laser guyided has a range of 4000m
Los, I am the first to admit that I am not up on the modern armor
capabilities. However, I think that the BMP-3 only mounts a 30MM
auto cannon as its main weapon. If the ATGM capability exists,
it exists in the same form as on the BMP-2 (75MM gun, I think),
as a launching rail atop the main gun. (Yes, getting out to fit another
missile in a combat situation will be very hazardous to ones health, but thats
why armored infantry get the extra pay and 'elite' status.)
Bye for now,
In a message dated 98-07-04 13:49:21 EDT, you write:
<< Los,
I am the first to admit that I am not up on the modern armor
capabilities. However, I think that the BMP-3 only mounts a 30MM
auto cannon as its main weapon. If the ATGM capability exists,
it exists in the same form as on the BMP-2 (75MM gun, I think),
as a launching rail atop the main gun. (Yes, getting out to fit
another missile in a combat situation will be very hazardous to ones health,
but thats why armored infantry get the extra pay and 'elite' status.)
Bye for now, John L. >>
The BMP-3 has both a 100mm gun/launcher and a 30mm autocannon. The
100mm
weapon fires the Bastion (AT-10) ATGM which, naturally, is loaded like a
conventional gun round, meaning under armor. It may also fire conventional HE
rounds.
The BMP-2 mounts a 30mm A/C and a single launch rail for a tube-launched
Konkurs (AT-5) ATGM on turret roof. The launcher cannot be reloaded
under armor.
The BMP-1 is armed with a 73mm low pressure gun and an ATGM launcher,
AT-3
above gun barrel in older models, AT-4 or -5 on turret roof on
modernized ones.
No the BMP3 mounts a 100mm rifled cannon with a 30mm coax. If you have
questions go
here: http://www.dmi.usma.edu/Milresources/Weapons/bmp.htm
Los
> John Leary wrote:
> Los wrote:
Once through
> > the rocket motor kicks in. It is laser guyided has a range of 4000m
> You wrote:
> I am the first to admit that I am not up on the modern armor
Nope--it's got a goofy 100mm tube that fires HE rounds and ATGMs.
Kinda a twinky idea, but Russians for whatever reason can't get the
same accuracy out of their guns us NATOans can--you won't see any
Russian tanks going near the world record for tank kills (5.3 km, set by some
Brit during Desert Storm) any time soon.
> Pmj6@aol.com wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> The BMP-3 has both a 100mm gun/launcher and a 30mm autocannon. The
Mike, Thank you, I guess this is what happens when one lives to far in the
past.
Bye for now,
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Nope--it's got a goofy 100mm tube that fires HE rounds and ATGMs.
Your assesment of Soviet tank guns and "record" shots is not withstanding, the
gun on the BMP gun remains one of the most powerful ones on an IFV. What do
you expect them to do put a tank main gun on an APC? Just about every IFV in
the world has a autocannon of some sort. Very few have the extra bonus of a
meaningful HE lobber. Just what infantry need in a
number of differnt scenarios. The 100mm semi-automatic gun is designed
forfiring HE rounds. It doesn't fire HE rounds, but does carry the missile.
IBTW there are other sources which gives more info on the AT10. Max range,
4000 meters, can defeat reactive armor, has a hit probability of 80% at
maximum range and can penetrate 600mm
BTW here's a picture of the missle
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bmp-3/bmp-3_8.html
It is also meant to be fired against helicopters and has optics built into the
laser desigantor and tracking system to help the gunner acquire and track
helos. Tracking is by laser. The gunner and the commander have both automatic
and manual override controls and french made night optics.
I had a chance to check these things out in Kuwait. In their attempt to make
everybody happy they've gone ahead and bought a bunch of these things from the
Russians as well as chinese artillery, Russain T90s and US M1A1 tanks) The
Kuwaits drive thes ethings all over the place, in harsh conditions (they're
not very caring with their stuff), and live fire the hell out of their stuff
(because they have the money and because they finding shooting stuff "fun").
The BMP3s hold up well and all of us US types including the armor advisors
were impressed with them.
In the hands of a capable crew (which the kuwaits are most definately
NOT) the BMP-3 is an excellent weapons system, In some ways better than
the Bradley. The I-TOW is still a better tank Killer, but the AT10 given
it's versatile role does the trick just fine. If we had them in the US we'd be
killing tanks with them up to max range without problems. Thank god the
majority of the Armies in the world are downright incompetent at anything
except generating random violence and can't make meaningful use of the tools
they ended buying for themselves.
Reliability of the vehicle and it's lethality rest almost exclusively in the
hands of who is using it. You put M1A2s and M3s into the hands of a poor of
mediocre army (typical of our middle eastern friends) and they're no more
dnagerous to us than if they has soviet stuff. This is a point many people
don't get when they start harping about technology being the key factor of
army effectiveness.
> ----------
Without getting into an argument on Armour Recognition; LOS is correct; the
100mm and 30mm are laid side by side. This is one of the
extreme advances over the BMP-2 designs.
Does anybody know if a BMP-3 mini (6mm, 1/300, etc) is produced? I
don't have the latest GHQ catalog, so I'm at a bit of a loss. It would go well
with
my T-80s & BMP2s.
Noah
> Does anybody know if a BMP-3 mini (6mm, 1/300, etc) is produced?
<checks GHQ website> I don't see one. BTW, GHQ has their catalog online at
http://www.ghqmodels.com. I don't know if they keep it real up to date
or not though. Later,
> You wrote:
> , the gun on the BMP gun remains one of the most powerful ones on an
Actually, I don't like encouraging infantrymen to play tanker in the first
place. Prefer to split the vehicles into AT and APC versions. Why? Coz if you
engage with the TOW at 3.5km like God and the designers intended the TOW to be
used (Why? Max effective range on a
T-72's main gun is 3km. Hence you did your anti-tank ditch 3.4km from
a significant terrain feature, put your ITVs behind it, and you've got a
significant chunk of the NATO defense plan for West Germany), your infantry
has to walk 3.5km under fire to get to where they are useful. If you get
close, you're wasting a lot of range, and then someone tries
to get into a slogging match at point-blank range. That works against
Iraqis with ageing T-55s and Iraqi-manufactured ammo that can't
penetrate tinfoil. It won't against an army that could find it's arse with
both hands and a flashlight.
But anyway, I do like the point about HE rounds. Nothing says loving like
light artillery.:) How, I wonder, would I simulate this in
Dirtside? Maybe a LVC--Low Velocity Cannon. As HVC, but 6" less on
each range band, 1 less chit vs. armor, but 1 more vs. infantry than
HVC, plus you get a GMS/L system for half the capacity points? Only
comes in sizes 3-5, after all it's gotta be big enough to be
worthwhile.
Let's see. That makes the BMP-3 work out to
2xTeams 8(Dunno the capacity, so using general guideline)
LVC/3 9
RFAC/2 4
GMS/L 1
For a total of 22. Assume 6-man team and it's a size four vehicle.
Wow. This needs work.
> I had a chance to check these things out in Kuwait. In their attempt
If their doctrine is like their equipment selection... Nations you DON'T want
to be responsible for finding spare parts for.
in >harsh conditions (they're not very caring with their stuff), and
If it breaks you can always buy a new one, right?
> Reliability of the vehicle and it's lethality rest almost exclusively
Russian stuff is better about that--it's designed to be operated by
conscripts with little training and less education. Or at least it used to be.
> many people don't get when they start harping about technology being
What was that some author said about a man with a crossbow who knows how to
use it in the right place is worth ten armored divisions that are broken down,
lost, or late?
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Actually, I don't like encouraging infantrymen to play tanker in the
Now it sounds like you are questioning the validity of IFVs. You are confusing
mission profiles again. First off, you won't normally go attack tank units
with pure infantry, that's why we have this little thing called "Combined
Arms". First off, you usually don't have the billiard table type engagement
ranges you are talking about. All of your comparisons always seem to be about
two vehicles standing there trading hits. Anyone who fights there vehicles
like that deserves to die as soon as possible. In the infantry do you think in
those terms also? Hell no. You use fire and manuever. Second engaging tanks is
what AT and armor do. The IFV is designed to support infantry with fire. The
TOWs give the squad an unprecedented AT capability that it never had before.
Considering what we were coming from (M113), theres no compaison between APC
and IFV. hell if they are going to replace my M113 with a vehicle that mounts
a 25mm cannon, 7.62mm bushmaster AND TOWS I'd fave to be an idiot not to
accept.
> On Sat, 04 Jul 1998 19:21:08 -0400 Los <los@cris.com> writes:
Kinda like what the Israelis were able to do with all that out-of-date
equipment they had when they were fighting for survival.
Of course, an actual fight for survival adds a certain edge to things, as
well.
In a message dated 98-07-05 00:39:44 EDT, you write:
<< Maybe a LVC--Low Velocity Cannon. As HVC, but 6" less on
each range band, 1 less chit vs. armor, but 1 more vs. infantry than
HVC, plus you get a GMS/L system for half the capacity points? Only
comes in sizes 3-5, after all it's gotta be big enough to be
worthwhile.
Let's see. That makes the BMP-3 work out to
2xTeams 8(Dunno the capacity, so using general guideline)
LVC/3 9
RFAC/2 4
GMS/L 1
For a total of 22. Assume 6-man team and it's a size four vehicle.
Wow. This needs work. >>
My estimate would be LVC/3, RFAC/1 (I'd reserve RFAC/2 for weapons like
the
Bofors 40mm or Rheinmetall 50mm) and GMS/L. Definitely 2 infantry
teams.
However, since the GMS is fired through gun tube, the vehicle should get the
GMS for "free" in terms of capacity (still must pay the points cost.) In fact,
how about this optional rule:
Any vehicle with a size 3 LVC, MDC, or HVC system may also mount a
GMS/L
without paying capacity points for it (but still has to pay the points cost).
A vehicle with a size 4 or 5 LVC, MDC or HVC system may get a GMS/H with
the same stipulation.
In a message dated 98-07-05 07:55:07 EDT, you write:
<< Actually, I don't like encouraging infantrymen to play tanker in the
> first place. Prefer to split the vehicles into AT and APC versions.
I agree. Operating as a tank destroyer vehicle requires fundamentally
different tactics than close infantry support. It'd be better to give each
mech bn a company of Hellfire-armed Bradley TDs to kill tanks, leave
them in overwatch, and let the Brads do infantry support work. A 3.5km missile
is just not good enough to go toe to toe with modern MBTs (or even Soviet ones
with missiles which can reach out to 5km).
> But anyway, I do like the point about HE rounds. Nothing says loving
Why? Light artillery is already availably, Size 2, does for tanks and
infantry.
The gun-launcher thread reminds me of a couple of things I've said
before, but not for a year or more, so:
Firstly, I think it was an error to change Dirtside to a system where vehicle
design is a question of engineering, rather than description. I think this is
a mistake in FT as well. In DS1, you describe a vehicle... this size, this
armour, this mobility, this gun, this launcher, this many troops, these
systems (etc.) and a formula gives a points cost... no worrying if you can
"fit it all in". If you want to slap an extra weapon on a existing tank or
APC, you can... and why not?
Secondly, I note that the playtest version of DS2 included a
"Smart Munitions Cannon", which was another non-kinetic energy
weapon that was defeatable by reactive armour, firing, as you might guess,
guided rounds.
> You wrote:
e vehicle should get the >GMS for "free" in terms of capacity (still must pay
the points cost.) In >fact, how about this optional rule:
Gotta have ammo storage room. 1 point for a GMS/L isn't that much.
And I prefer to keep it GMS/Ls. GMS/Hs are just too big to stuff into
a little ol' gun barrel--and way too unbalancing, especially vs. lower
tech forces. My Tagmatic Kataphracts with Superior ECM and Enhanced PDSs on
the size 4 medium tanks ignore GMSs. Basic ECM and no PDSs get chewed up badly
enough as it is.
> Does anybody know if a BMP-3 mini (6mm, 1/300, etc) is produced? I
Scotia Models are always a good bet for this sort of things. 'Fraid I don't
know any sort of web address for them
> X-ListName: Full Thrust Combat Game Mailing list <FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk>
Heroics & Ros do a BMP-3 in 1/300; I haven't seen it in the flesh, but
it is listed.
Rob