BMPT / BMPT‑72 balance issue – survivability, armor modeling and BR placement (with data)

Game Discussion General Discussion
,
1

I would like to submit a detailed balance report regarding the BMPT and BMPT‑72 vehicles.
This is not a subjective complaint — the following points are based on in‑game testing, armor analysis and comparison with other vehicles at the same BR range.

1. Survivability – documented issues

1.1. APFSDS performance vs BMPT armor (test results)

Tested using the following rounds:

  • DM33 (405 mm pen @ 0°)
  • 3BM42 Mango (450 mm pen @ 0°)
  • M774 (420 mm pen @ 0°)
  • DM23 (350 mm pen @ 0°)

Results:

  • All of these rounds fail to consistently penetrate the BMPT’s upper front plate, despite the armor being listed as ~200 mm RHAe vs KE.
  • Side armor also resists rounds that should overmatch or penetrate based on the armor viewer values.
  • Multiple hits result in no crew knockouts, due to the extremely dense crew layout and overlapping armor modules.

1.2. Crew layout advantage

The BMPT has:

  • 5 crew members
  • spread across multiple compartments
  • protected by overlapping armor and internal modules
  • with no single-shot kill zone from the front

This results in the BMPT surviving 3–7 APFSDS penetrations in real matches.

2. Firepower – exceeds IFV role

The BMPT has:

  • 2× 30 mm autocannons with extremely high sustained DPS
  • Ataka ATGMs with 800+ mm pen
  • High gun depression
  • Excellent turret rotation
  • High mobility

This allows it to outperform:

  • IFVs
  • light tanks
  • and even MBTs in close‑quarters combat

No other IFV at this BR has this combination of firepower + survivability.

3. BR placement – mismatch with actual performance

3.1. BMPT at 10.7 regularly faces:

  • Leopard 2A4
  • M1 Abrams
  • Type 90
  • Ariete
  • Challenger 1

These vehicles cannot reliably penetrate the BMPT frontally, while the BMPT can destroy them with:

  • ATGMs
  • side shots
  • turret ring shots
  • or simply outmaneuvering them

3.2. BMPT performance metrics (community data)

Based on player‑collected statistics:

  • Average kills per match: 3–6
  • Average deaths: 1–2
  • Survival rate: significantly higher than other IFVs
  • Repair cost: low relative to performance

This is not consistent with a 10.7 support vehicle.

4. Suggested balance adjustments

Any of the following would help restore balance:

Option A – Increase BR

  • BMPT → 11.3
  • BMPT‑72 → 11.3 / 11.7

Option B – Adjust survivability

  • Reduce effective KE protection
  • Adjust internal module spacing
  • Reduce overlapping armor zones

Option C – Adjust firepower

  • Increase ATGM reload
  • Reduce autocannon damage or accuracy
  • Reduce turret rotation speed

Option D – Combination of the above

5. Conclusion

The BMPT platform currently performs far above its intended role and BR.
The combination of:

  • excessive survivability
  • high firepower
  • strong mobility
  • and low BR

creates a clear imbalance in ground battles.

I hope the balance team will review these points and consider adjustments in the next BR evaluation cycle.

Thank you.

1 Like
2