if you got cover and good reverse speed, bmpt at 1km and + wont be a problem…
destroying it at this distance is
Doesn’t even need to be this, on the Eastern Europe map, in the town with the dirt mound, they can park halfway on it and basically be hulled down, suppressing the opposite riverside.
The maps also being what feels like urban settings 80% of the time means if they come charging around a corner you’ve got only a few seconds to aim for the viewport (Hopefully it isn’t dressed up as a bush wookie) since LFP would be unreliable) before your barrel is minced.
3000 posts and it’s still completely broken. Gaijin do you even care?
3 Likes
Gaijin love russia.
2 Likes
It’s just pure bulll plop. Playing and they just absorb punishment no way to disable the barrels or FCS systems.
Any other IFV just dies to it.
Don’t speak badly about our beloved Russia, or your comment will be REMOVED !!! And don’t you dare talk about Russia’s supporters either !!! They’ll call the devs/moonds so they don’t get discredited, since they’re totally refutable on every single point.
1 Like
Last Soviet Premium Line-up bender.
Now granted almost all of them were clueless but still its so satisfying to kill those BMPT players.
1 Like
They are just pure cope, hull is near immune from the front. The turret is too hard to damage
And the if you meet them head on you might not die but you are going to be crippled.
The drivers port weakness doesn’t exist because of double ERA?
and lower plate is a kill if you get the chance to hit it. Way too survivable
2 Likes
BMPT/72’S SHOULD BE AT 11.7-12.0 CAUSE THE ARMOR MUCH BETTER THAN T80BVM AND T90M EXPECIALLY BMPT TECH TREE. My big hopes
Shouldn’t be in the game as they are modelled should not be armoured the turret should explode like you have shot an SPAA but no magically super resilient.
Just another Russian premium vehicle ruining the game
1 Like
NO !!! BMPT/72 NEED GO TO 9.0 !!!
Is very very very very weak in 11.3 !
NATO PLAYER CRY.
( Irony )
2 Likes
Can’t check the standard BMPT, but if it’s anything like T-90M…
I’ve used driver’s port exactly once, because other weakspots are infinitely better than that.
That’s one of the reasons I called for it to be moved up.
Spall liners are present on everything except the LFP.
Other than those, I’m glad you and I are on the same page on what makes BMPT strong defensively.
1 Like
Can my PUMA also get wireless ammo belts pls gaijin i need this. My PUMA is kinda ammoless.
6 Likes
Only if it can be an external belt too
T-90M level protection at 11.3 is balanced? I guess bro. Please, play the game. If you don’t know what to play let me tell you: sweden 10.7 using 2A4 and fight against BMPT. Here a little scenario simulation for ya reference:
OHHH hey look that’s a bmpt coming my way SURELY that’s gonna be an EEEEEEZ kill because my 2A4 is HELLA OP and the bmpt is extremely OVERTIERED and supposed to be BR2.0!. SURELY he is NOT going to mysteriously absorb my SUPER POWERFUL 400pen DM33 and remove my barrel and tracks within 0.001 second. OHHHH this game is SOOO FUN!
3 Likes
So are you claiming the T-90M hull the BMPT uses is also broken with your mention of the fuel tanks. it’s using the same exact hull as the T-90M with the inclusion of modules. I have found nothing to be different about them and both should be brought into question as this was never a discussion before. I find it very odd players are noticing nuances the BMPT has that the T-90M had for a very long time, but wasn’t brought into question because it didn’t have autocannons that would yearn to be more opressive, which would in turn–have people pointing out miniscule things in any form to question it’s survivability.
As far as I’m aware, players already found the BMP-2M annoying, so you placed that platform on a tank chassis, yes it is going to be perceived as broken, oppressive and annoying, because you’re combining 2 effective traits on 1 vehicle, this does not mean it shouldn’t of been added to the game, as these are similar arguments that were made when war thunder was still in it’s WW2 phase of vehicles. Things will naturally progress.
To point out the ammo belts, I already mentioned they made this change to one or 2 vehicles with similar setups, this is even true to the BMP-2M as it’s 30mm GL ammo only sets ablaze and does not instantly end the vehicle and I personally do not think that shooting a single 30mm, especially if it’s APDS should instantly end the vehicle as ammo of this caliber do NOT function in such a way.
The game is going to advance over time with more vehicles added, this is only a select case of “Pantsir syndrome” where players advocate Russia shouldn’t of got it in the first place because no other nation has an equivalent or anything equal to it’s capability (IRL)
While I agree with your statement of Anti-ERA rounds, rounds such as DM53 are classified and the devs would have to make very careful speculations on these.
As I said before, I don’t disagree with adding Anti-ERA rounds, but their inclusion would have to be careful. It’s not like Russia and correspeonding nations have a wide variety of tanks, most of them use the similar hull with the same Relikt setup.
Which would mean any new tanks using this hull would become null and voicd, or more so be a huge weak spot, more or so less armored than the Abrams, not taking into account if newer 2020/23 models upgraded their internal armor/turret array
The only new tanks Russia would get would be the T-14 Armata and T-15
The T-15 is similar to the BMPT and has much more effective systems.
I want people to think, when these vehicles get added (if they ever do) will the cycle start all over again? Monolith ERA, questioning the vehicles effectiveness etc.
People are complaining about the Abrams armour, bot not taking into account that since ERA obviously carries these tanks, that if everyone got them, tanks using them on the turrets/hull would be worse than the Abrams armor wise.
I don’t disagree with the vehicle moving up to 12.0 at all in the slightest, but I also don’t want things to be blown out of proportion when people ask for things and not consider other factors
Saying it “shouldn’t of been added to the game” is quite a statement to make for a game with lots of different vehicles. There are going to be vehicles that don’t fit the standard roles of most vehicles IRL or in-game for that matter and shouldn’t be discluded or not looked at because of that.
1 Like
What “double” ERA are people referring to?
1 Like
I’d prefer if you’d at least base your frusturation less on opinion than what you’re currently spewing out. What does cosmonauts have to do with anything in-game? Why are we comparing assymtrical warfare irl to what’s just tank on tank combat in-game.
What makes you think other vehicles guns aren’t just as unstable or inaccurate at long ranges.
People are only cliaming the vehicle is broken because they have to deal with a BMP-2M that has tank armor, because everyone thinks that IFVS should be light and killable and want this perfect world that does not exist.
There is no propaganda so I’m not sure why this word pops up in this sentence.
If you’d like to get yourself familar with general accuracy of autocannons, not just Russias 2a42. Look no further than this video, as autocannons in war thunders history has been a long endless debate.
1 Like
So are you claiming the T-90M hull the BMPT uses is also broken with your mention of the fuel tanks. it’s using the same exact hull as the T-90M with the inclusion of modules. I have found nothing to be different about them and both should be brought into question as this was never a discussion before
I’d say it’s just the BMPT the damage model. Here’s a video of post pen damage with the T-90M, T-80BVM and BMPT with M829A2 at 500 meters at 50*.
Reason I include all 3 is because the T80BVM hull is thicker with no spall liner and the T90M is thicker AND with a spall liner. Thing is, the BMPT has FAR less fragmentation and is in a tighter cone in comparison, which makes little sense as it’s only 10mm difference. Now do this in the fuel tank on the BMPT v the T90M and the only fuel tank eating the shot is the BMPT (which also gets a fuel tank on both sides)
As for the 30mm GL, that’s because the explosive penetration is only 3.3mm whereas the top of the BMP2M turret is 6mm. From the game’s penetration calculation, it can’t (even though a whole chain of 30mm GL is going to severely damage the tank IRL). However, notice how when you detonate it, the entire chain goes up, as with any other autocannon? So why is that not the case with the very continuous ammo chain of 30mm on the Terminator, outside that because it would knock out the tank? There’s no break in the ammo chain and is the only way to knock it out if hull down (I mean hell, they nerfed the TOW-2B to dust because of the hull down attack. Why should Russia be the only one to profit from it).
The game is going to advance over time with more vehicles added, this is only a select case of “Pantsir syndrome” where players advocate Russia shouldn’t of got it in the first place because no other nation has an equivalent or anything equal to it’s capability (IRL)
It’s almost like it’s a literal brand-new vehicle IRL. It makes no sense to add that as why don’t we have modern NATO equipment like JAGMs or M2A4E1 then? I mean hell, we’re missing quite a few Bradley variants as well as NATO vehicles missing laser track and lead ballistic computers. What’s the justification of adding a combat support vehicle to Russia from 2016/later when there are DOZENS of other vehicles that could be added?
As I said before, I don’t disagree with adding Anti-ERA rounds, but their inclusion would have to be careful. It’s not like Russia and correspeonding nations have a wide variety of tanks, most of them use the similar hull with the same Relikt setup.
So how is it fair to have brand new, real world, Russian vehicles designed to counter everything that’s in game? Hell, it’s like how the T90A from 2005 uses a 2016 round fights the IMP1, which was retired in 1996. Why isn’t it on par with the M1A2 SEP from the same time period (which is STILL limited to a 1992 round)? Or why does the T90A fight the Challanger Mk 3 from 1990 and retired in 2001, which is limited to an early 90s round and their top tier round is the L27A1 from 1999? Noticing a trend yet? Japan has the JM33 and Type 10 for top tier, which is a licensed DM33 and a specialized 120mm round from 2010 (on par to the M829A2), Italy gets the DM53, France gets the OFL 120 F1 from '92, Sweden gets the slpprj m/95 (a version of the M322) and Israel get the M338. They’re ALL Generation III APFSDS, whereas Russia gets almost brand-new ammunition. With this logic in ammunition, why doesn’t Russia get 3BM46 as their top tier ammunition seeing how 3BM60 was designed to counter NERA? Which I REALLY hope Gaijin doesn’t add the T-14 Armata, especially seeing how it gets 3BM69/3BM70 IRL.
Seeing how I’ve point blanked them from the side and watched the round get eaten by thin air, there’s clearly an issue with the damage model and, to be quite frank, is busted in the current state of the game. It shouldn’t have been added and should be removed from the game until that time comes. The ONLY reason it is is because Gaijin can’t stand the thought of the Russian TT not having an easy grind (and yes, it’s far easier playing Russia than any other TT) and it’s going to wreck top tier until Gaijin does something. Moving it up is only going to stop players from playing 11.7-12.7.
Gaijin Entertainment - Single Sign On Also, you say as your team got spawn trapped and decimated by two BMPTs.
1 Like
I wish it was lmao
I’ll attach a few clips of it here later (not home atm & gotta remove reactions in them that will get me booted from this forum)
I was specifically referring to the 5mm of RHA around the fuel-tanks, which doesnt create any spall whatsoever - incomparabale to the spall liner which only decreases the total angle of the spall cone.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/N0UqWBgTUzIi