The BMP has no place at 10.0 and should be moved to 11.7 with its insane atgms. you can shoot them one after the other without delay and has darts.


It’s equivalent to IFVs around 10.0.


not 11.7, but it should be up-tiered. It has no place at 10.0 with the PUMA and M3a3. They all have similar penetration, but only M3a3 and BMP2m have missiles. Even then the BMP has proxy missiles and 1200mm tandem missiles, while M3a3 is only 800 tandem. Not to mention the Bradley launcher deploy time, and no firing on the move vs 4x missiles ready to go and can fire on the move.


Bradley also has proximity ATGMs that work out to 3.75km.
About as fast if not faster than BMP-2M.
And commander thermal + override which makes shooting ATGMs over cover easy & safe.
So I’d say on par, at worst within 0.3BR of each other.

1 Like

BMP’s are good to 10km and have 30 seconds of thrust, making them potent anti-heli missiles and technically out-ranging everything before VT-1 and ADATS, though I admit i’ve never used either in battle.

BMP’s tandem ATGM is more than good enough anyway, as it an one-shot an M1A2 SEP under the mantlet, or cripple it anywhere on the LFP while the TOW-2A, well, can’t. Not to mention that BMP faces effectively zero ERA since it’s Russian, while TOWs both face ERA and have worse pen.

Bradley also has HPT of 17.76 vs BMP’s 21.93, and BMP’s slightly increased top speed

Commander therms are definitely an advantage, and I assume the bradley’s has a bit more depression than the BMP’s, but the BMP can do the same thing by raising the zero slightly, allowing it to barely poke out over the edge of whatever hill and do the same maneuver, and shooting its ATGMs up a bit to get over the rocks or whatever while the Bradley has its ATGM launcher exposed at all times


Which are completely dead weight against targets that they are supposed to BTFO, due to a simplification because of engine limitations.

And no subsequent allowance to bypass / ignore ERA due to their modeling shortfalls, or account for the nature of the Dual charge warhead’s impact on penetration.

The TOW-2B is effectively only modeled as having its forward charge, its also debatable if the penetration is correct either(127mm main charge diameter) let alone the unique EFP spalling model.

Does someone need to have a talk with you to tell you how useless it is to comment “wrong” without even explaining why you THINK (key word) they’re wrong?


It’s been a problem tank since introduction, doesn’t look like it’s going to be fixed any time soon, so how about some alternative solutions to a BR raise, since WT is a mixture of game balance and realism.

Make it so that it can only accurately fire missiles while stopped, with missiles fired on the go having a significant chance of hitting the ground on launch or jerking wildly.

Create a cooldown of 5 seconds between each successive missile launch, that way it can’t spam all 4 missiles and the 2m player is required to think about aim, positioning, and target selection.

Increase the reload time to replenish the missile racks.

Drastically increase the rate at which the main gun heats up from sustained fire.


I was tired, and 11.7 is obviously not sound for an IFV.

I wouldn’t say 11.7 but 10.7? Easily.


11.7 is too harsh, you sound like a bad NATO player.
BMP-2M is one shot kill. Easy.



What BR do you suggest?

10.3 or they should just fix more on BR problems.

10.3 is a bit low

Then what about M1128? 10.0 is still low

Then what about 2S25M


You cant even kill a russian light tank, what a massive skill issue


I don’t think the point he’s trying to make was that the BMP 2m is tough to kill, it’s an ifv and if it somehow was then there would be problems.

But rather compared to its 10.0 counterparts from nations like the US, Germany (if the PUMA even counts as a counterpart), and Italy, the 2m is superior.

Anyways, I brainstormed a few ways it could be balanced without jacking up it’s BR above.


we could always go with the type 89 way.

remove the ability to fire on the move
limit the ammount of missles

1 Like