47t and 65kp/h figures are both for the service-variant, not the BMPT prototype. (As you can see by comparing the two brochures I added)
The datasheet for the Missile-Launcher specifies the maximum elevation-range that it can achieve, however this does not mean that the depression of the missile-launcher is the same on all platforms.
In this case, the -10° figure directly contradicts the BMPTs manufacturer (UVZ).
Additional brochure for BMPT as reference for the weight and top-speed figure;
So how do you explain rosobonexport catalogue from 2005 IIRC stating 65 km/h, when it was still a prototype?
Send the page that does.
UVZ is very consistent with the 60kp/h figure for the prototype BMPT’s (including BMPT-72, though for that I am not 100% certain whether they have conflicting figures in other brochures that I havent seen yet)
Aswell as the 48t (BMPT Prototype), 44t (BMPT-72 Prototype) and 47t service-bmpt figures.
In any case, I would value UVZ’s figures as more relibale than such from rosobonexport.
It’s this
According to the document, it’s from 2003
That one gets the 30mm 2A42’s ammo count wrong, so idk how reliable the rest would be.
The UVZ brochures I added were from 2011 or 2012.
search function is your friend. in case you were looking for it in this thread, you guessed it, its the wrong thread.
The BMP-2M may be at a lower BR, but does it have the same armor? No.
Im aware, but at the very least, the weight could be 47 tons, even UVZ website says 48±2%, that would almost be 47 tons perfectly
Btw, rosvooruzhenie is a primary source right?
fr lol
Is the - in the room with us?
Your 47t figure for the ingame version is essentially pure fantasy as it contradicts several OEM brochures, infosheets from exhibitions, website statements etc.
And then we can also consider that the ingame BMPT has additional addon-side era (tiles) available, which do not magically make the vehicle a ton lighter by adding stuff to it.
You’re essentially going through several brochures, sometimes for what are literally different configurations/vehicles alltogether, pick and choose which values you like and ignore the others that contradict them or others and then start throwing them together to build a vehicle with characteristics you wish it had, rather than such you can prove the ingame-vehicle did infact have.
👍👍
I had a feeling this was what was happening, based on him ignoring the fact that the BMPT can survive ammo racks and only wanting to speak about problems that would buff it.
I wasn’t able to make any confident statements, though, as I don’t have these manuals you do.
Laughing so hard about your article !!!
BMPT is the worst joke tank ever !!! I dont know how many deadly and fatale shots I fired and it still lives. Besides … the rocket pod does not explode when hit ! AND the ammo rack also does not explode when hit !!!
BMPT should be where it is until they figure out a way to kill it while hull down
That’s the thing, you don’t.
But currently, hitting ATGMS apparantely is killing it, which ironically present themselves as a much bigger target.
Still better than any other IFV.
Not true.
Think again
??? How is it not true? What world do you live in? The Terminator has armor compared to none of all the IFVs, it has missiles that penetrate 800mm frontally and 4 of them for immediate use along with a replacement box, 2 cannons that destroy enemy cannons quickly too, how is this not better than any current IFV? I think you should wake up. And about those Clickbaits you cry so much about, I eat them for breakfast with the FlaRakRad.
because is not a ifv to begin with…
its meant to hunt down tank.
Boyevaya Mashina Podderzhki Tankov
which translate to Tank Support Combat Vehicle
i wish it was a ifv too, scout and cheap spawn with the ability to make cas even cheape. i wish but no
use that brain for a sec
‘‘Not true.
Think again’’
‘‘use that brain for a sec’’
For someone who struggles against Clickbaits, you have a lot of audacity.
