BMPT/72 BR Topic

[An_Pigeon]

@AlvisWisla

BMPT has vastly inferior firepower to T-80U.

No it does not? the T80U I’ve used a lot as well as the UM2 mate, they do not have anwhere near the same firepower as a BMPT.
It’s got more one shot potential but that does not equate to more firepower.

@AlvisWisla

BMPT’s damage model is a T-90 with more space between the UFP and ERA packages.

the BMPTs’ damage model is still broken they literally have not changed the fact it’s will absorb random as hell shots into areas where it shouldn’t.

You and I both know it’s a broken tank even now.
Defending it’s quite outlandish, or claiming it has worse firepower than a T80U when it in fact does not.

You also claimed the T80 has over 600MM of penetration but the way you calculated it makes absolutely zero sense. as the calculation in game has it already calculated it’s 308MM of kinetic penetration, as it’s the angle + distance lol.

Dunno where you’re whipping /cos 2 from.

[AlvisWisla]

@An_Pigeon
600mm kinetic > 800mm HEAT warhead.
And no, 3BM46 does not have 308mm of penetration in any world. That is a blatant lie.
Statcards say you’re wrong.
Statcard says that 3BM46 can penetrate a 308mm plate of RHA steel, that is 616mm of penetration.
Saying otherwise would be lying.

Not sure why you’re defending BMPT this hard.

[rainy2000]

I know.

I’m saying it is almost as busted as when the 2A5 was first added (I should’ve specified in the dev server).

[An_Pigeon]

@AlvisWisla

And no, 3BM46 does not have 308mm of penetration in any world. That is a blatant lie.

Mate it’s literally 308MM at 0 meters at 60 degrees.
Which **by the fking formula of WT using the Lanz-Odermatt formula, the 308MM is the penetration VS RHA, not x2 of that.

So again the cos / 2 calculation has no baring here as it’s literally already done for us thus giving us the generic 308mm of penetration.
against RHA. which is designed to be more effictive than regular steel.
Thus again making the comment of 600 MM of penetration again, irrelevant.

as well as disingenious.
Clucthing at straws to defend the BMPT is wild even for you mate the thing has taken over the BR bracket with absolute ease xD

on top of this, in game RHA is the standard so a 1.0x modified, while structural steel is a 0.45x multiplier so even if you wanted to try say it has more pen VS say, structural steel you still wouldn’t use the standard cos / 2 formula to work it out. as it’s using various multipliers in game to calculate the effective protection of the armours themsevles as well.

[quote=“AlvisWisla, post:7923, topic:292256”]
308mm of steel angled at 60 degrees is 616mm thick.

This is basic trigonometry my dude.

Also if cos / 2 was already done for us it’d say 616mm not 308mm plate.

@AlvisWisla

308mm of steel angled at 60 degrees is 616mm thick.

This is basic trigonometry my dude.

You realise the game has the angle calculated for you no? hence why you lose penetration at 60 degrees.
You in fact do not ahve 600mm of penetration at 60 dgrees, you have 308MM of effective penetration. So you can penetrate a piece of armour that is 308mm thick not 616.

3BM46 cannot pen anywhere near 600 flat even in game lol.

It is not a Line of Sight (LOS) value, but rather a direct measure of the physical, flat armor thickness that can be penetrated when the armor is angled at 60 degrees from the vertical. so again, IT can only penetrate about 310MM of armour at 60 degrees.

You got your maths wrong dude. Gaijin the 60-degree angle penetration value shown on War Thunder’s stat cards for APFSDS already includes the necessary trigonometric and mathematical calculations

simple google cna tell you that.

@AlvisWisla

All you’re doing is defending BMPT; and in the worst ways.

Alright man. So saying the BMPT has actually higher firepower thana T80U is defending the BMPT.

@AlvisWisla

All because I’m defending Britain.

Where was britain mentioned bar in comparison with the warrior?

You’ve also massively deviated from your original points.

At this point, when you try the standard stuff of trying to tell me I’m defending something I’m not, or in reverse etc.
I just ignore you.

Others can read this and make of it what they will.

[AlvisWisla]

@An_Pigeon
308mm of steel angled at 60 degrees is 616mm thick.

This is basic trigonometry my dude.

Also if cos / 2 was already done for us it’d say 616mm not 308mm plate.

Mathematicians & Gaijin > your nonsense.

All you’re doing is defending BMPT; and in the worst ways.
All because I’m defending Britain.

[G3ntl3man95]

puma have 0.7 kd so gg to gaijin completly destoyed it…

[rainy2000]

@AlvisWisla

600mm kinetic > 800mm HEAT warhead.

Yes, 800mm HEAT warhead is worse than 532mm APFSDS.

Even though LOS of HEAT is 800mm, which is better than 3BM46’s ~600mm, it doesn’t take into account ERA spaced armour, and composite armour that reduces CE effectiveness.

@AlvisWisla

Why would I ever play an 11.7 BMPT when superior tanks are at 11.3 and 11.7: T-80U, T-80UK, T-90A, T-72B3…
Why would I harm the chances of my team winning by bringing a vehicle that is worse than T-80U?

@AlvisWisla

BMPT also has 800mm metal slug penetration ATGMs, which cannot pen the same armor that 3BM46 can,

However, you can shoot 4x of these HEAT warheads at the enemy at any single moment, whereas T-80Us can only shoot one of their 3BM46 every 6s.

Of course, it’s better to have 3BM46 shot off initially than a couple HEAT ATGMs, but if you miss / don’t do enough damage / don’t penetrate with 3BM46, you are screwed for 6s seconds unless you reverse / get into cover before they retaliate.

However, 4x HEAT ATGMs is better in that regard.

@AlvisWisla

and the ATGMs are not as accurately fired in close range due to offset.

It really depends on how close you are.
~200m+ and the offset isn’t that problematic. Besides, you can usually track and barrel them and then kill them with OP anyways:

And if you are closer than 200m then why aren’t you taking out their barrel and tracks with APDS… and then going to their side?

30mm APDS can also dismantle the barrel and tracks of any tank relatively quickly, allowing you to kill MBTs frontally with said APDS relatively easily (against targets like the Abrams, Leclerc, Type 10, Type 90, and TKX), or with ATGMs of course.

Side-shots are much more consistent with BMPT because you can spray until they die. You can kill multiple targets in one go unlike with 6s reload 3BM46.

You can also kill almost any vehicle in one-shot due to overpressure regardless of how much they expose their tank, unlike with 3BM46:

Spoiler

Abrams:

Leo 2A5 / 2A6 / 2PL / 2A7V(A lot more difficult than Abrams but still possible. Would recommend going for breech):

If you see 2A4 / 2A6 / 2PL hull, easy overpressure or crew wipe out with HEAT jet:

Chally 2 is a bit easier:

TKX / Type 10 really easy, as well as Type 90:

ZTZ99s are easy too:

Ariete is a bit harder to overpressure (only the gunner optics) but you can just pen it anywhere anyways…

Leclerc is a bit less consistent but still overpressurable even when not exposing its hull / turret:

Can penetrate it relatively everywhere on the turret anyways… including the breech area which allows for ammo detonation.

Merkava Mk.4s used to be invincible to overpressure spam but LMUR addition nerfed their roof armour:

Much tougher cookie to crack than the rest of them but still prone to BMPT shenanigans.

2A7 HU and the Strvs are basically impossible to overpressure though… the only vehicles that are immune to ATGM one-shot spam when being hull / turret -down.

BMPT, on the other hand, is immune to everything when hull-down (and turret-down of course), and can stay hull-down for a large portion of its vehicle. The superstructure is massive:

T-80U:

[Kievskiy_Minipig]

@AlvisWisla

308mm of steel angled at 60 degrees is 616mm thick.

I think you are mistaking something because 308mm value tells us that 3bm46 will go 308mm deep into test plate at point blank range at 60 degrees. If this plate is perpendicular to 3bm46, dart will go 532mm deep at point blank range.
Here is 3bm46 statcard proving my words.

[AlvisWisla]

@Kievskiy_Minipig
Statcards tell us how thick the plate is when flat.
308mm of plate thickness at 60 degrees is 616mm.

Long rod APFSDS pens more against angled armor than flat armor.

The statcard disproves your claims.

[Kievskiy_Minipig]

@AlvisWisla

Statcards tell us how thick the plate is when flat.

It only tells so about vehicles armor. Flat thickness and effective thickness at impact angle. You both were discussing 3bm46. Statcard of 3bm46 doesnt tell how thick the plate is when flat. It only tells pen values, how deep will shot go in different circumstances. 308mm at 60 deg, 532mm at 0 deg.

@AlvisWisla

Long rod APFSDS pens more against angled armor than flat armor.

No it doesnt, because angled plate will have more effective thickness therefore requiring more penetration. While t80u can pen 531mm thick plate with 3bm46 at point blank range, it will be unable to penetrate same plate at 30 or 60 deg. Only 449 or 308 mm of it.

@AlvisWisla

The statcard disproves your claims.

It doesnt.

Also why 3bm46 is able to penetrate 525mm of armor (which is close to statcard value) but couldnt do same to 616mm effective thickness?

According to your calculations, 3bm46 has 616mm of pen so 3bm46 should have penned maus ufp in that situation or had “pen chance is low” text, not “penetration is impossible”.

@AlvisWisla

that is 616mm of penetration.
Saying otherwise would be lying.

[AlvisWisla]

@Kievskiy_Minipig
616mm of pen is at 60 degrees.
That’s 72 degrees:

If your incorrect reading of Statcard was correct then 2000 meter DM13 shouldn’t pen Maus:

And the result:

[BabySoEz]

- YouTube

2 hours ago, not on april fools ok

[Grossaaaa]

Penetration is just read as “Pens a plate with a maximum thickness of 308mm when said plate is angled at 60° at 10 meters”.

There is no interpretation for that stat.

As for your other imbecilic statements regarding the “superior” MBTs, why are the stats of said MBTs way worse than the BMPT?

All these tanks struggle to come remotely close to the worse BMPTs stats, but you are yapping about how the BMPT is worse than these tanks?

EDIT: Before you yap that the T72s are so much better; they are not.

[Kievskiy_Minipig]

@AlvisWisla

616mm of pen is at 60 degrees.
That’s 72 degrees:

Tell me pen value formula for 200mm plate at 72 degrees then, Im curious.

@AlvisWisla

If your incorrect reading of Statcard was correct then 2000 meter DM13 shouldn’t pen Maus:

I literally went by your logic for that example. Wrong logic leads to wrong results.

Your screenshots keep proving me right.

Your screenshot shows 208mm pen at 60 deg at 2000m. So sabot goes 208mm deep into 200mm maus plate at 60 degree at 2000m and goes through because 208mm > 200mm.

@Kievskiy_Minipig

308mm value tells us that 3bm46 will go 308mm deep into test plate at point blank range at 60 degrees.

Your screenshot shows 359mm pen at 2000m at 0 deg. Sabot goes 359mm deep into 200mm at 60 deg which can be converted into equivalent protection for that shell - 344mm at 0 deg. And it goes through because 359mm > 344mm.

@Kievskiy_Minipig

If this plate is perpendicular to 3bm46, dart will go 532mm deep at point blank range.

You can literally change values in quoted statements to leo2k values and my point will remain same and will be correct.

[SandmanSix]

Hey folks, I’m still here to say BMPT needs to be removed been playing to boost the metrics hopefully everyone here can do that same.

[BabySoEz]

You boosted it for 4 months now? RIP to the non-BMPT players

[Sweedish_Gunner]

Another high quality game vs 11.7 Soviets whilst we have US players for our 11.7’s…

[SwingfireOP]

Oddbawz made a video on the bmpt

- YouTube

He goes on a rant about how broken it is at 27:55

[BabySoEz]

I posted it on the above

[Sweedish_Gunner]

The game lasted less than 7 minutes. This is a joke.

The BMPT needs to go to 12.7, and we need more vehicles to fill out these BR’s. Sweden, Germany, China and France have no 11.3 or 11.7 tanks, meaning the BMPT is top tier (not that it matters) almost all the time. Ridiculous.