The BMP-3 has tandem ATGMs with more pen and which effectively ignore ERA, are beam riding so they can’t be jammed by anything, go almost twice as quickly, and can be fired on the move. They also have twice as many. The only downside is the reload.
In terms of placement, they’re instantly in line with the sight so there’s no risk of them overcorrecting and missing at close range, they also don’t slam into walls when you’re poking around a corner. But the worse part is that they have an absolutely glacial 2 degrees a second aced vertical traverse. Meaning if you have to point the gun up to aim at a plane or whatever, you will not be able to use the ATGMs against anything at ground level anytime soon. Even hilly terrain can be an issue.
The difference in capability is huge. If a BMP-3 runs into an MBT headon somewhere, they can just derp fire an ATGM at them and stand a reasonbale chance of winning the fight. If the Type 89 does, it loses if it isn’t already stationary, and the slow missiles and awkward placement make it unreliable anyways.
Yeah, the Type 89’s got better ammo, but the BMP-3’s is still more than enough to side pen everything you see at the BR, with enough fire rate to kill things quickly, and doesn’t have to deal with the crippling ready rack replenishment speed.
Also, mobility isn’t that close. 28 Hp/t on the BMP versus 23 Hp/t on the Type 89. Yeah, the 89’s reverse speed is greater, but 20 kph isn’t slow.
Indeed, I can’t agree more. Regarding War Thunder realism I always had this problematic point of view, and seen how things tend to be going, I don’t think I’ll change it any sooner.
Adding shiny and reflective windows as there is nothing inside as it acts just like a mirror, or perhaps tanks flying in the minor hill they face as it had no mass whatsoever or a small bush cutting your speed in half, adding a realistic change where makes this arcade game nowhere realistic in some way difficult to some is also no logical in my point of view.
War Thunder, at the time had countless realism, physics and logic issues, I believe and far from what I can remember, these missile changes were made based on the community’s complaints regarding their performance, but there’s my problem, if missiles were changed, why not tanks as a whole, suddenly, specially autoloaded tanks can reload without automatically aligning the breech with the autoloading mechanism, I may and surely I’m talking nonsense.
The ATGM may be the only positive point between the BMP-3 and Type 89 comparison. In my opinion Type 89 will outstand BMP-3 just because of the autocannons, the armor, is no different, equally insufficient.
From my experience I had better matches, and could face encounters with more ease against main battle tanks with the Type 89 (2.17 kill/death ratio in 368 total vehicles destroyed out of 169 deaths in ground realistic battles) rather than with the BMP-3 (1.28 kill/death ratio in 372 total vehicles destroyed out of 289 deaths in ground realistic battles).
Despite my stats on this vehicle differ from the next guy which makes my previous point useless to the discussion, because this doesn’t show how good or bad the vehicle actually is, I still belive that the Type 89, even without the ATGMs is better than the BMP-3, as I always recommend, and I’ll, BMP-3 is better as a sniper vehicle and the Type 89 as a brawler, due to the faster rate of fire and better close combats capacity overall.
I have to disagree. The BMP’s far easier to use ATGM and fire on the move capabilities make it far more reliable for me in CQC brawling type scenarios. If I come around the corner and see a Russian, Chinese, British or American MBT in the Type 89, I mostly just die. There are some shots that work, but it’s unreliable. Meanwhile, if I run into any of them in the BMP-3, I can just derp a missile at them and often win the trade outright.
The Type 89 is technically better if you manage to get flank shots on enemies, but again, the BMP-3 isn’t bad here either. You have a higher rate of fire, and the belt feed is much more forgiving for having to spray a bit. You require flatter angles and closer ranges, but it’s not exactly impossible to make it work.
The Type 89 is best playing a bit defensively, utilizing it’s high pen main gun and decent missiles at medium/longish range. It’s quite adept at countering the various wheeled LTs that are common in uptiers. But even here, the BMP-3’s high quality thermals and small hulldown sillohette give it advantages too.
Outside of running into a swarm of Leopards 1s headon, anything the Type 89 can do, the BMP-3 also can, while also being able to do more in other scenarios.
You then complain about skill for some reason.
Then you mention planes for no reason, a red herring.
Then once again complaining about skill.
Mobility is not hp/t. Transmission plays the biggest role in mobility.
@Aegis270 I’ll never play the BMP-3. It’s ugly and inferior to what I play already.
1.2:1 KDR is above my IFV average, thanks for admitting it’s a great 9.0
Also you talk about many aspects of skill in your posts to try and praise your precious BMP-3.
You even cite skill [statshark and player records].
Either way, learn respect. CQC front plates are rare.
All you can do is accuse others of having skill issues.
You say, with utter certainty, despite clearly knowing very little about it.
I’m not sure this proves what you think it does.
All I’ll say is that despite being my most played ground vehicle (I played a lot of that lineup back in the day), my performance in it is solidly below my average in all other IFVs near the tier.
It’s still workable, it’s just far from the best IFV at 9.0.
Project, much? I hold the BMP-3 to be generally superior to the Type 89, that hardly means I worship the ground it stands on.
Says the guy who effectively responded to my rebuttal with “Skill issue”.
So ure Arguing with 100% Personal Opinion then, not with Facs.
Like the two guys replied already… maybe u think the BMP-3 is worse… but the facs and alot of arguments that come with these facs are not an Opinion. Thats a matter of fact and denieing it would make any discussion, with you or anyone , pretty pointless.
Sure we can discuss if the given facs are legit… but denieing it in the first place will not bring this discussion forward.
The BMP is overall better. Thats a fact by given stats and arguments.
The Type 89 is better on “longer range/ridgeline” encounters, not always but mostly, due to the much better Pen and Gundepression.
The BMP is better on everythink else. The mobility is better, the gunhandling is better, the ATGM can be fired on the move. U can simply brawl much better with it and in this game you need these benefits more then u need gun depression or more Pen. Especially at those BRs.
If u like one more then the other… fine… but were talking about Performance of a Vehicle on Average here. I like the Type 89 also, even have a tali for it.
This is only useful against soviet mbts like t55/t62. Bmp almost never faces those and its apds is enough for majority of enemies bmp faces. Lets also keep in mind that bmp firerate is almost 2 times better and cannon isnt limited by small ready to fire rack.
Its obvious lie, bmp has better power/weight ratio and difference is noticeable. You will reach firing positions faster on bmp and not on type 89.
Another lie here. Type 89 atgm launchers cant depress and cant fire on move. While bmp can fire atgms on move and isnt limited by lack of depression which saves it in lots of situations. Also how placing launchers on 2 sides of turret is better than having atgm on center? You always have to take into account rocket trajectory from both sides in point blank ranges and lose ability to strike enemy if one of your launchers gets obstructed by random obstacle. Lets not forget about bug which prevents you from firing missile on ifvs with this type of atgms whenever your autocannon meets some object. Bmp doesnt have such flaws and launching atgms from center is more comfortable.
@Kievskiy_Minipig
It’s weird how my posts are the primary posts defending Type 89 from posts claiming BMP-3 is the best IFV ever made on planet earth based purely on their feelings.
Mobility:
Speeds:
BMP-3: 70/20
Type 89: 70/43
Traverse:
BMP-3: 8 seconds.
Type 89: 12 seconds
Acceleration to 30/50.
BMP-3: 30: 3.
50: 8.
20: 1.x/1.x
Type 89: 30: 3/4
50: 10.
20: 1.x/1.x
Oh wow, would you look at that, the mobility is equal despite the hp/t being different.
Cause the transmission of the BMP-3 is inferior to that of the Type 89 in shifting and top speeds.
Spoiler
Spoiler
So keep claiming facts are bad and feelings is all that matters.
Oh, by the by… Type 89 has 10 degrees of gun depression vs BMP-3’s ~9 degrees.
Launcher depression doesn’t matter because missiles are guided by the gun depression not the launcher depression, that and ATGMs drop slightly before motors ignite on ALL ATGM launchers in the game, including BMP-3.
Edit: Oh, and missile position is 100% preference. It’s not an objective standard.
Your numbers literally prove bmp3 takes less time to reach speeds and traverse. “Here is 3 and here is 5. Oh wow, would you look at that, those numbers are equal”.
Well at least I dont claim that different things are same. Also I didnt base on feelings, only on vehicle parameters in game.
And bmp has controlable suspension which allows it to have decent gun depression so depression isnt an issue for it.
Are you sure about that? It does matter especially on close ranges and especially when you are on sloped terrain. Even with that slight drop missiles would likely fly to high (or straight to ground if your launchers are looking down) if you dont pick fine launch position. Just like on strf9040bill which suffers from same issue. Bmp, for obvious reasons, doesnt suffer from this on other hand.
Then why did you bring it to this comparison as something “better” earlier?
113 battles on bmp 3 and binded suspension controls for it (and kpz as well) in settings. It can tilt forward and backward to increase its gun depression just like bmd 4 or stryker.
And better isnt only subjective term.
@Zulizia There was a typing error.
It has been fixed to portray my actual thoughts that I’ve had for years.
Sometimes you shouldn’t question old information, and doing so caused me to make a typing error.
@Zulizia
BMP-3 and BMD-4 have hydro-pneumatic suspension. This has been my position for over 10 years having played them in Arma 3 and researching them.
I was doing 6 things at once and my typing was incorrectly done. If you have issue with people admitting their mistakes, then that’s sad.
Except you didn’t admit to your edit* until called out. You instead had somebody reply to you, then you cut it out with no explanation. Also, I never said I had an issue with you. I’m pointing out the weirdness of using “Edit:” to clarify your true thoughts, but not when being corrected? The fact you immediately try to paint me as a “sad” person is even more weird. Why on the defense?
