10 Likes
Stronger ATGMs ?!? Literally the only stronger Russian ATGM is the Kornet,which can’t even be fitted into the ATGM holder
BMPT was designed to use the 130 mm Ataka,not the 152mm Kornet
Now please do yourself a favor and stop writing in this topic :D
4 Likes
How about something constructive.
With the “nerf” to the 2a42, or russian 30mm cannons if you must. 2 things should’ve happened.
-
The Low Rate of Fire mode on the 2a42 cannon should have had it’s own adjustment so the deviation is not equivalent to the high rate of fire, as it completely defeats the purpose of having the low fire rate mode.
-
All other nations vehicles wielding autocannons (not just Russia) should of got similar adjustments as weapon acccuracy was a nothing burger until the BMPT was added (nobody cared)
1 Like
If there’s evidence other ifv’s have accuracy issues as blatant as the 2a42 absolutely can you show me any evidence of other vehicles with a similar amount of barrel wobble and accuracy while firing ?
You’re missing my point. All IFVs have some level of deviation in accuracy, especially at longer ranges, not as drastic as the 2a42 but still present. I may not have been fully specific, but when I said “accuracy adjustments”, that would be respective of not being a laser pointer. I’m not suggesting they have the accuracy of the 2a42 while on full auto.
1 Like
Yup been having the same issue. Also some goofy stuff when shooting under the ERA and the dart suddenly tilting in a random direction.
say wallahi
Sounds like he has a massive skill issue so he goes here to cry about it
1 Like
I own both BMPT and have used them extensively. I have also fought them extensively, and when they’re hull down, my priority is always their missiles as they’re reliable to hit, unlike the 30mm belt in the turret.
I have never once killed a BMP-T by hitting its missiles in the 400 or so matches of top tier I’ve played since it was added.
Doesn’t matter. It’s not relevant here, and I have nothing to prove as I didn’t say those reports were gospel. I made a passing statement, nothing more.
I didn’t claim that; I stated that some sources had claimed it. Stating that a source claims something does not mean I am stating it to be true; I’m simply giving context.
Furthermore, it isn’t relevant. I don’t care if you’re bothered by me being realistic here. The BMPT is still overperforming, and it doesn’t use the Kornet; it uses ATAKA missiles. Do not trap me in this discussion. The OP brought up giving the BMP-T the Kornet; I did not.
2 Likes
The missile thing has only come out last update, I have some clips saved of it getting killed that way…
2 Likes
He did not.
He said the BMP-2M has 1200mm of penetration. Which is more than 800mm found on the BMPT with the 9M120
And after that you “stated that some sources had claimed it” (9M133-1) has 900mm of pen
You are the one that tried to bring the 9M133-1 into the convo of it being used on the BMPT
So you’re just “mentioning” something, that according to you “isn’t relevant”? Noted
Underperforming in max speed, fire rate, launcher depression and weight btw, aswell as grenade launcher, and a stabilizer for it.
Links bug report that disporves him. Reaction? That isn’t true.
It can use 9M120’s but sure. [B05S011 guided weapon system (coded name Berezhok for BMP-2M ICV fighting compartment) | JOINT STOCK COMPANY RESEARCH AND PRODUCTION CORPORATION KONSTRUKTORSKOYE BYURO MASHYNOSTROYENIYA]
Notice how you’re making another claim without a source?
What anger bait
Even not daring use you true ID
Why should we listen to some guy who hasn’t even played a single game? This is simply a waste of time
Then it’s rare, but I still haven’t seen it. I just ground the entire Russian helicopter tree about 9 days ago from the Mi-24V to the Mi-28NM using my BMPTs and other premiums, and not once did I ever die to that.
No, Just no. Don’t have to explain why this should not be done, we all know why.
uh huh… How bout we’ll just check what UVZ has to say about that, shall we?
No
That one is correct, max cyclic RoF is 600rds/min.
(Considering that no changes were made to the feeding system on the service-version compared to the prototype)
No
Also No
No mention of stabilized Launchers, solely FoV/Sight stabilization which gaijin doesnt model as stab ingame (See: AMX-30 DCA, ADATS, etc.)
1 Like
Editing exists.
Once again, you’re hung up on something that doesn’t matter. The ATAKA is already more than enough to defeat most 12.7 vehicles. All I did was state that some recent claims have debated the truth of the Kornet’s penetration, that’s all.
I didn’t, but whatever you want to believe, man. Why would I even suggest the BMP-T should have the Kornet when it’s overperforming with ATAKA missiles? That makes no sense.
It’s called context, but you’ve now cried about this one statement across every reply you’ve made to me. Get over it.
Cool. Prove that to Gaijin, not me. I don’t care about having the BMPT made even stronger when other vehicles have been rotting in Bug Report hell for over 5 years.
This isn’t about “fixing the BMPT”, because if it were, you’d be focusing on the fact that it survives ANY ammunition explosion at all. Unlike NATO ammunition, Russian Ammunition does not deflagrate. Any hit to the ammunition, especially in the configuration of the BMPT, should be absolutely lethal.
A single screenshot doesn’t prove a bug exists. It’s well known that the hit cam is not always consistent.
What is this kill cam bro😭 #warthunder #fyp
huh!???
It’s memed constantly. Your claim hinges on you pretending this issue doesn’t exist.
The current BMP-2M in-game uses the Berezhok weapon module. It does not use the ATAKA missiles, so it cannot be swapped to use them without an entire vehicle remodel.
I should have specified. I should know that you’re going to pick at wording to make a point. The BMP-2M we have in-game should be called the BMP-2M Berezhok. When I said “It does not use atakas”, I explicitly meant the Berezhok represented in-game.
The BMP-2M does not use APFSDS in real life, unless you can somehow prove it is. 3UBR11 exists, but its use is completely up to speculation.
Furthermore, it is well known that high-fire-rate autocannons struggle to use APFSDS and APDS because the projectiles’ high muzzle velocities and temperatures wear down their barrels quickly.
I don’t need to go into this as it should be common knowledge. There’s a good reason why the Bradley shoots as slowly as it does. It isn’t a style choice to fire slowly; it’s practical.
1 Like
And it’s already accepted as 65 km/h anyway: Community Bug Reporting System
Multiple sources list it as 65 instead of 60, together with 47 ton, it’s possible it’s a different version but idk
https://roe.ru/en/production/land-forces/armored-combat-vehicles/bmpt-tank-support-combat-vehicle/?theme=theme-green
https://web.archive.org/web/20170815112109/http://www.kbm.ru/en/production/ptrk/478.html
ÔÑÂÒÑ Ðîññèè | Êàòàëîã ÏÂÍ
Manufacturer of the actual launch rails lists it as -10
His claim was about the BMP-2M being unable to use 3UBR11, not about the BMPT
Not saying something != not existing
https://web.archive.org/web/20230803035608/https://www.fsvts.gov.ru/catalog/910.ru.html
3 Likes
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;
1 Like
So how do you explain rosobonexport catalogue from 2005 IIRC stating 65 km/h, when it was still a prototype?