I’ve submitted a bug report.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/2pbl5ymOLL8F
5 Likes
Updated the list to include two submitted bug reports, still missing a few. Some will likely be corrected as the devserver is updated since the vehicle is still a WIP.
If the firing ATGM on the move report is implemented, the vehicle will most definitely be moved up in BR to at least a 9.3-9.7 minimum.
If anyone makes any additional reports for the vehicle, please share it here and I’ll update the list.
thank you thank you. good to see it forwarded to devs. Praying that devs dont treat this just like they did the oplot. If they do, well thats two strikes against ukraine.
3 Likes
Can btr-3e survive an ammo rack to the turret?
looks like the amo in the X-ray (see the 1st post of the topic) are intentionally far from anything (just under the roof). I don’t know if any armor plates are inside, but I think it does, or minimalize it IRL. Hope it is the same in game.
Based on my understanding of the available blueprints and schematics, I wouldn’t expect high vehicle survivability after a hit to the main 30mm ammunition storage of the BTR-3E1. This is because the BM-3M «Shturm» turret it utilizes likely lacks full isolation of the ammo rack from the fighting compartment (see Fig. 1, label 12 — «cannon magazine» and Fig. 2). Part of the 30mm ammunition is located within the turret itself, while the other part extends into the vehicle’s interior. (Which I provide as my personal interpretation rather than an absolute fact.)
Fig. 1
In contrast, I expect better survivability from the BTR-4 (which I generally consider a vastly superior vehicle) after an ammo rack hit. It uses the BM-7 «Parus» turret with remote ammunition storage. In the game, this configuration can be accessed via the BTR-4M, which was supplied to Indonesia.
3 Likes
here the view from the inside Thai BTR-3E1
video
https://x.com/wuthi11_/status/2009394671110475912?s=20
3 Likes
Direct hits to the ammunition storage should be avoided at all costs.
I realize that within the game’s mechanics, this would be almost useless, but it’s a shame that no additional slat armor modules were supplied to Thailand, as they have a certain visual aesthetic that I really like.
BTR-3E1 add-on armor
In-game, this could have been implemented as an optional researchable modification.
2 Likes
what im confused about is why is it at the same br as the 82? dispite the 82 getting far far better atgms, slat armor and such
Dual ATGM’s that still perform well, plus the grenade launcher. It may be able to fire the missiles on the move and be moved up higher if the report is accepted and implemented
1 Like
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/2pbl5ymOLL8F
Fire on the move has already been accepted.
Imo it would be even a better option compared to Type 87 and Type 89.
2 Likes
Agreed, sorry I meant Implemented*
2 Likes
The type 89 will be better as it has a lower profile, smaller size, and neutral steering. I will se if btr is better when it releases but I highly doubt it.
In my opinion, within the game’s meta, the most effective combination would be an MT-LB fitted with the BM-3 «Shturm» turret. 🌚
Their armor is roughly on the same level - essentially «don’t get hit» - but the silhouette is significantly smaller and lower, while the tracked base provides superior mobility.
MT-LB «Sthurm»
Spoiler
(It’s just a shame that such a vehicle can only be expected with a full Ukrainian tech tree, as it was never produced for export.)
1 Like
I’m assuming this would also apply for the future Thai BTR-3RK ATGM vehicle (which would make this thing even more deadly)?
3 Likes
I don’t have the official documentation for the BM-RK combat module to confirm 100% that the BTR-3RK can fire ATGMs while on the move.
1 Like
👀
