BMPT/72 BR Topic (Part 1)

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
7837

The problem there isn’t the accuracy, it’s the ammo.

The HEDP that the AH-64s use and the SAPHEI that the Tigers use is terrible against most vehicles.

The USSR helis use APDS and APHE, both of them have more pen, even at distance.

(I can’t test the accuracy myself right now, but I don’t remember there being a big difference)

They aren’t broken, they work as intended by the devs.

You shouldn’t be relying on them at all, as they are FnF ATGMs.

If they kill someone, great, if they crit, also great.
If they don’t do anything meaningful, whatever, you didn’t have to do anything except pick a target.
Low risk = low reward.

My personal experience has been that they are a great tool to just harass enemies and get a free kill every now and then as well.

That affects all tandem ATGMs, not just blufor ones.

Fire-on-the-move requires special setups and the USSR just happens to have adopted those setups a lot more than other nations.

Wire-guided ATGMs, which make up for the majority of blufors ground launched ATGMs in-game, aren’t meant to be fired on the move and the sights used to guide them often aren’t stabilized.

Similarly there are USSR ATGMs that aren’t fire-on-the-move capable.

Gun-launched ATGMs are always fire-on-the-move capable and there are some available to blufor vehicles right now.

Blufor nations have abandoned gun-launched ATGMs though and that’s the main difference here, regular ATGMs being fire-on-the-move in-game is limited to the BMP-2M and BMPT
I am not familiar enough with RF TOWs, but those and ZT3A2s (on a vehicle that isn’t the Ratel) should be fire-on-the-move and it remains to be seen if or when Gaijin will add them.

There also are the LAHAT and Falarick (already available on the CT-CV and CV99105), which could be added to some blufor vehicles.

The launchers having to deploy is unique to the Bradley, the M903s AND the Shturm-S (which is a USSR vehicle btw), other ATGM carriers don’t have that “feature”

7838

It’s the April Fools event, they do that every year and a lot of them have been badly balanced because they are experimental in nature

This has nothing to do with the ongoing balance discussions

7839

The accuracy is one of the problems. The Mi28’s gun is extremely accurate, which not only gives it a benefit at nailing ground targets but also makes it insanely effective against gun running jets (which is one of the few options you have to kill the MI28s). The MI28NM can easily engage air targets 3-4km out, heavily reducing the threat of something flying by and killing it.

Except the issue here is that the “threat” of spikes makes the vehicles they sit on go up at least an entire BR, if not more. So now you get a couple of very RNG missiles put onto an IFV that would typically sit in a completely different BR range.

The Namers/Eitan sit at 11.3 with a 30mm bushmaster and 4 spikes each (2 ready to fire at once). Once those spikes are gone, you’re left with a weapon system that sits on vehicles down at 9.3/9.7 while having to face up to 12.0/12.3. If you’re going to force such major BR changes for tanks that run spikes, they spikes should be much more effective than they currently are. The biggest irony is that the spike launchers with the most missiles available sit at the lowest BRs of all Spike carriers.

2 Likes
7840

Definitely, it’s a problem, but even if blufor heli guns were more accurate, they’d still be severely limited.
I feel like that even after nerfing the accuracy of the USSR guns AND buffing that of blufor helis, there would still be a significant imbalance that just cannot be changed.

I agree that the Namers and the Eitan are over-BR’d, most of the Spike launchers could go down one or more BR steps (not below 10.3 though)
I just won’t agree that Spikes are bad or that they should be siginificantly buffed to make them low risk - high reward weapons.

7841

https://thunderskill.com/en/vehicles

7842

Just fired 6 agm 65d at 2 bmpt and both survived and went on to win without being killed

7843

TBH mate the best vehicle I’ve found against them is the Ra’am Sagol and M1 KVT xD not at all what I was expecting.

7844

There aren’t many spots that a HEAT Maverick could hit to kill a BMPT

If you want to kill BMPTs specifically, the SAP-HE Mavericks do the job more reliably

1 Like
7845

Why on christs earth are you using thunderskill

7846

So much ERA even the crew have it on them xD

1 Like
7847

Personal ERA

Modern day flak-vests

1 Like
7848

Feel free to provide better empirical evidence …

7849

I think the consensus is that Statshark is better

1 Like
7850

Statshark is much newer so it doesn’t have the statistical weight of Thunderskill.

On Thunderskill you have for instance : Sherman Composito with almost identical K/D to an Obj.279 ( 2.14 vs 2.15 respectively ) while on Thunderskill there is much bigger gap in favor of the Obj.279 ( 3.5 vs 4.9 ) which makes sense since 279 is arguably more survivable.

Don’t get me wrong Statshark is nice but yeah you get the point.

7851

But afaik Thunderskill only uses players that are actively registered on it so the sample size on Statshark is vastly bigger and much more representative

4 Likes
7852

The problem with saying StatShark is ‘more representative’ just because it captures more data is that you ignore data quality.

The core issue here is the tension between historical depth and sample composition. While StatShark casts a wider net with the automated trackig, this approach inherently introduces statistical noise by capturing bot accounts, script-grinders, and inactive profiles that can heavily skew the mean.

Conversely, ThunderSkill’s strength lies in its longitudinal data, it has a much deeper historical record ( especially on some vehicles that are no longer available to new players outside of rare events ). Because it only tracks people who actually look themselves up, it creates a sample of ‘active’ players. It’s basically a leaderboard for the people who actually care about the game, rather than a giant list that incl every ghost account ever created.

TLDR : Yes Statshark has wider data sample but Thunderskill has far superior data quality. As shown in my previous comment Thunderskill stats make a lot more sense when it comes to vehicles. Now when it comes to engine perf graphs etc ( things that don’t require statistics ) yes Statshark is vastly superior .

7853

Thunderskill is

  • 1 hilariously out dated.
  • 2 has a far smaller sample thus less accurate.
  • 3 has always been far less accurate than statshark is now.
2 Likes
7854

Read the comment above .

7855

you are correct.
Thunderskill has my KD wrong as well as, the number of battles, and the efficiency I have lol. It’s still down at 60 odd percent which is just nonsense as most games now I am in the top 4 of my team.

7856

I’ve read the comment above and it is mostly irrelevant, thunderskill was always massively misrepresentative of vehicles and statistics as it was only used by those who would sign in to it.
Which thus gives a substantially smaller, far more dedicated representation.

It mixes both air and ground battles into one which is ridiculous as it clogs up players stats as well.

Thunderskill was and still is absolutely filled with stat padders, which naturally makes tanks look better or worse.

It actively ignores helicopters, as well as lacks a lot of information on newer vehices which means again, it’s statistics are heavily skewed.

The playerbase you refer to which are opted in , is but a drop compared to the actual entire playerbase, actively playing.
Now we all know about “bot” accounts, but there are also tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of mediocre players, who have never heard of it and likely never will
So they will never see themselves on it.

Mines still has my stats from about 18 months ago as the most up to date as well, my overall KD is not 1.0 at all, my overall KD in GRB alone is verging 1.1, and ARB it’s higher.

It really doesn’t the sample size is tiny, and massively skewed by statpadders and sweatlords, like your mention of the 279, it’s rarely seen since it’s BR went up, bringing it’s KD down naturally.
However Thunderskill still shows it at a much higher rate as it still is using the KDs of it from many years ago when it was 8.3.

Thunderskill when it comes to actual vehicle statistics as well is quite off, you can look at the stats of a vehicle and it show you it massively over performing as I said due to statpadders abusing it so even if one is decent, it gets made to look stupidly stronger.

I mean it tracks barely 2% of the battles which go on, you cannot tell me that is a proper metric for any form of basis of how a vehicle performs statistically.

Screenshot 2026-04-01 234601

this for example, i havent touhed arcade in any game mode for many , many years. Not air nor ground.