Worth noting that the CMSF2 and CMCW BMP-2 is not armed with 30mm APDS, realistically neither would the CMBS BMP-2, full bore APBC is the most common anti armor projectile issued to Russian 30mm. The Russian 14.5 is a relatively spicy projectile, and the 30mm APBC is a bit lackluster. Which is to say the baseline M2/M3 Bradley's intended resistance to 14.5mm API at short range translate to a shockingly high degree of resistance to 30mm at reasonably short ranges.
The nominal penetration of a 14.5mm bullet on flat armour is very high, but a small-diameter bullet is not at all comparable to a thick-bodied 30mm shell. The armour on the basic M2/M3 was optimized to break up a bullet at a head-on strike using thin spaced steel plates, enough that the 1-inch aluminium base armour can stop the bullet core fragments. Those thin steel plates are not nearly enough to break up a 30mm shell at the same angles and range that they would a 14.5mm bullet.
In a scenario, I'll use the bmp-2 as a battle taxi first, and then in somewhat of a light tank role, making sure to use terrain to keep them alive longer if possible. the amount of Javelins being used by the Americans is the typical issue for every Russian vehicle. If it's a quick battle, I'm not going to bring the bmp-2, they simply don't justify their cost, I'll pick BTR, or MTLB instead, and even then often times many of those armored vehicles will be replaced by Urals, freeing up more points for things like more artillery, more tanks, etc. terrain, weather, and time of day are all factors but I don't think that the BMP-2 ever makes the cut for me.
Great video as always Hapless! I am always frustrated/confused when watching footage of infantry dismounts riding on top of Russian APCs and IFVs. I understand the ergonomic issues and the lack of protection, but it just seems like such a disconnect between the idea of an armored transport/support vehicle for infantry who then don’t even use/have armor to protect them. I say this as someone who’s 6 foot 3 inches, so I would probably be riding on top anyway 😅
@@usuallyhapless9481 I definitely wouldn’t argue with that logic. I imagine the fix for that would be to have similar mine protection to that of an MRAP. Hell increase the armor all around so you have protection from HMGs, but then you definitely aren’t amphibious which is a major issue. Thankfully I’m not an armored vehicle designer!
riding on top has been done ever since APCs and IFVs were invented. infantry knows first hand the fear of being trapped in a box that is a big target that protects against nothing. a man wants to see and feel things, and be able to scamper to safety on his own decision, instead of eating vaporized aluminum and fuel fumes as he tries to crawl over the dead and thrashing bodies of four men as he tries to get to the back door or ramp . I saw a ukraine video in which a bradley was hit, and the helmet camera clearly showed the toxic smoke filled cabin, and the damn ramp was stuck. My heart pounded as long seconds passed until the small door was opened. How many panicked lungfuls of that stuff .... If an infantryman sees a ATGM sizzling towards him, he can jump off the vehicle and try to survive. In a big no holds barred war, he's going to get killed anyway, he'd rather die with a chance, than trapped inside. in short, it's seen often because it's "the market working, people voting with their feet". its' the less worse option.
Not neccesarily. ATGM's have a much greater range than small arms, and being on top, they can leave much faster, whilst also helping the BMP with spotting.
@@decimated550 it’s less of a “why is the infantry not doing the correct thing” and more of a “why can’t we get a vehicle that feels safe to be transported in”. The answer to the second statement being that armoring everything like a tank is impractical and still not safe enough in many combat environments. That being said, being trapped in a box is scary but I would personally rather conduct an assault on a trench in a Bradley then a truck or buggy like some units do. That is a rather obvious statement though. Thankfully I’m not the poor guy going into an assault having to make that choice
A couple points: -The BMP-1 was designed to be frontally protected against 20mm cannon (although more modern 20mm ammunition is more potent) -In real life laser beam riding missiles shouldn't trigger laser warning receivers, which are more optimised against more powerful lasers used for semi-active laser homing missiles -The commander's sight in the BMP-2M does not have a thermal optic
Funnily enough I've been rewatching your "Death Ride to Schweben" playlist (excellent series, love it!) and I think your use of the BMPs was pretty good there. Push up behind cover and/or a screen of tanks, to deploy infantry into an objective, then support them. Unfortunately, it feels like that doctrine probably ended sometime in the 80s as ATGMs became increasingly common and capable (at least for peer conflicts) Great video as always, thanks Hapless!
The most success I've had with BMPs in Black Sea have always been sudden, violent assaults after long periods of scouting and trying to knock down AT threats with artillery etc. They can throw out a hell of a lot of fire, and you tend to have to rely on area fire as the spotting is so poor. Fine if you're assaulting infantry that you sort of know the dispersion of, less fine if you're facing down AFVs.
I wonder why they gave the BMP2M a 30mm grenade machinegun considering its 30mm cannon will do essentially everything the grenade launcher will do and the grenades will not even have any extra explosive or fragmentation. Seems like fitting a mortar would have been better.
Additional instrument of interacting with battlefield. AGS have a different trajectory and velocity of rounds. Autocanon is more of long hand dealing with light targets, AGS grenades are dedicated shrapnel thing.
This thing can definitely be a powerhouse for CMCW under most circumstances. Most of the time the Reds won’t have to face M1s or M2s so all that leaves is M60s and M113s which leave a lot to be desired. Sure the M60A3 TTS gets thermals but in the CMCW context they’re more expensive to field and usually they’re running with T-64Bs/T-80/Bs meaning sabot has a hard time frontally. That being said, combine mechanized forces with T-80bs leading the charge plus BMP-2s with fast firing 30mm that pens M113s like butter and you’ve got a hot mess as a US player. I’ve felt some pretty decent dread spotting one of these while playing CMCW so yeah definitely a product of it’s time.
Honestly I felt far more threatened by the BMP-1 than the BMP-2 in CW. The cannon of the BMP-1 will actually kill M60s uncomfortably often before the M60 can get its life in order and vaporize the BMP and it will still mulch M113s, buildings and infantry at range, while my M60s were able to deal with BMP-2s in large numbers with little risk to themselves any time they appeared in the campaign without much issues.
I appreciate the wider look into the reality of the modern battlefield. With the benefit of hindsight, the extra protection of IFV's like the Bradley doesn't really make a lot of difference in direct engagements, because any kind of LAW/RPG can punch through them. Keep in mind that they all have tandem warheads nowadays. And let's be real, if you are close enough to be blown up by an underslung grenade launcher, you probably deserve it. That said, the paperthin armor of the BMP-2 does make it more vulnerable to artillery fragments then the Bradley, Puma or CV-90, so keep that in mind. (Redeffect made an excellent video about this a while ago. And like you pointed out, the Russians are aware of it's limitations, which explains why the upgraded variant is virtually absent in the Russian army. It makes much more sense to skip ahead to the BMP-3M. I expect it would do decently well with the same kind of organisation as the BMP-3 (2 BMP platoons and 1 tank platoon), but it is certainly behind the curve. At some point, it sort of turns into an apc with inferior capacity, because it can't engage anything without being spotted and hit first. (a slight correction; the vehicle commander also being the squad leader is also present in Canadian LAV formations in shock force 2, and possibly some others as well) Anyway, excellent video. :)
Yeah, modern AT Weapons are no joke. I may have focused in too much on infantry AT, as opposed to AT in general, but the modern battlefield is a scary place for metal boxes.
@@usuallyhapless9481 And yet, at the same time, those tin cans are needed more then ever, because we can see more then ever before. A footmobile infantry force, is going to be obliterated by indirect fire. Especially when you consider that, in Ukraine, at least every company has a drone with a thermal, or even each platoon.
@@larsdejong7396 Yep. It's a tough one. My money's on Powered Armour being the gamechanger (ie. infantry with boosted stamina and speed) but that's a way off
It’s the core problem with IFVs. In the defense do I keep the infantry close and risk disclosing their position early? Do I position them as a remote base of fire but then have infantry that’s on foot and separated from their ammo resupply, armor cover from arty, and maybe radios? In the attack do I stay mounted and risk losing whole squads or platoons or do I dismount early and accept the loss of tempo?
It’s important to note that the BMP-2M in Combat Mission Black Sea does NOT have it’s CITV system modeled (and, technically, it isn’t an infrared camera, just a regular one with night vision), and also keeps (game-engine wise) the exact same fire-control system as the original BMP-2 The presence of a CITV on the 3D model and a new FCS (not modeled) makes the BMP-2M appear more capable than the BMP-3 or -3M (since neither has a CITV), but in reality, the BMP-2M lacks any of these features - being modeled as a normal BMP-2 with AT-14s, AGS-30, better smoke, and a gunner thermal
@@Det_core It wasn't forgotten, it was deliberately missed out on. The head of the company at the time had a raging hard on at the time due to what was going in in Ukraine and the game is forever tainted by these things. My previous comment appears to have been deleted despite it being 100% true and demonstrable by going to the company's own forums.
I think it would be important to note that for at least CM:SF2 (I’m not sure if CM:CW’s BMP-2’s get it in lower quality formations), the BMP-2 uses the inferior 3UBR6 APBC-T solid-shot round instead of the 3UBR8 APDS round, which puts the BMP-2’s firepower solidly below certain important penetration thresholds for opponents that it faces. A very important one (that I learned the hard way when I first downloaded the demo for CM:SF2) was that the Republican Guard BMP-2 cannot penetrate the Bradley, with or without BUSK, from the front AND the sides, at *point-blank ranges*. I had a BMP-2 sitting around a corner, a Bradley stopped ,side-on, ten meters away, and the BMP proceeded to dump three long bursts of AP into the Bradley’s side armour to no effect, pop smoke and reverse for a few meters before being Swiss-cheesed by the Bradley. The BMP-2 in CM:SF2 cannot compete against Western IFV’s in most cases, in both long (Western IFV’s both have thermals and can reliably hit BMP’s with their auto cannons at ATGM engagement ranges, plus the BMP’s cannot do both ATGM and AC at the same time) and short-range engagements, so it is better used either against lighter formations, such as Stryker infantry (LAV’s too, if you’re feeling lucky and have good positioning) or Humvees. They can also be used as pretty competent building-crushers, as its autocannon wasn’t conceptualized by a British man high on tea leaves. The BMP-2, in REDvRED combat, is also extremely vulnerable. In CM:SF2, the infamous 58-point MI-24 with both rockets and 12.7 Gatling guns can be spammed to great effect against BMP-2’s, with BMP-3’s being slightly more resistant to the torrents of .50 cal fire (they, like the others, often explode anyways front he compounding effects of dozens of partial pens, spalls and full penetrations) On the bright side, Syrian infantry do not have HEDP warheads on thei AGL’s and rifle grenades, which means that infantry lose much of their anti-armour threat when out of RPG’s. Unfortunately, the BMP-2 gets pretty hard-countered by cheap Kontakt-1 kits, as the vehicles are cheap enough to be plentiful yet highly resistant to the AT-5 (although they are vulnerable to even 30mm AP to the side, so BMP’s aren’t totally helpless.) (Also, may you consider sharing the sources you have for Soviet Cold War tactics/strategy? I’m looking to do some more detailed reading on the subject)
I stuck to CMBS for the testing, but 2017 Russians having better ammo than 2008 Syrians makes perfect sense. The tactics sources are FM-100-2-1 and this: www.armyupress.army.mil/portals/7/hot%20spots/documents/russia/2017-07-the-russian-way-of-war-grau-bartles.pdf
Interesting thing I found in testing the AT-5, it seems to always target the lower front hull from long range. That makes it useful for tanks without ERA on the lower front hull!
Yes, I've noticed the same trend but never been sure whether it's just coincidence. For every other kind of targetting, the gunner aims centre mass. It could be that the missile flies a metre or so below where the AI is aiming.
I think the way to think of BMP2s (and all other similar vehicles) in the modern context is as organic infantry support weapons. How do you give a rifle section an autocannon, an anti-tank launcher, and a medium machine gun without over-burdening the troops - the answer, put them on tracks/wheels. The BMP is blind as a bat and will get shredded by a strong wind and a handful of grain thrown into the air, it's not an infantry fighting vehicle and it isn't really an armoured personnel carrier either - but it can excel as a fire support vehicle for the infantry, especially given that you've got one for every section, 3 or 4 for every platoon. When the infantry are making their assault on an objective, the BMPs can be brought to bear to soften up hard targets that the infantry have spotted. The BMP3 is starting to work towards the IFV concept properly, but it's still too thinly armoured to really do the task. The best the Russians have in that regard is the BMPT but you don't see them very often.
both sides have recon drones, the US has one large drone that can fire Hellfire missiles (MQ-1C Gray Eagle) there are no FPV or drones dropping grenades
Also I love-hate the BMP-2M. The turret really straddles the line of looking cool and looking like it was made by a 14 year old, and spiritually it is a perfect metaphor for the creative bankrupcy of post-soviet russia, one step dead set on the stagnant 80s, the other set in the incredibly corrupt 2000s, eternally condemmed to a doom caused by reasons beyond its control
No. The game was released in 2014 and set in a hypothetical 2017- even now only a handful of BMP-Ts have been built and even fewer deployed. It's hanging around with Armata in the 'Russia desperately trying to look better than it is' category
Wonderful as always Hapless! One quick question, how sure are you that the SL is supposed to dismount with the squad? I've always been taught that the SL stays in the vehicle by default and can even have a dismount leader assigned. I'm not asking for proof or anything, just how confident you are about that information. Thanks!
@26:06 regardless if one views the BMP or anything from the old USSR and onward or views of the current war on either side which also goes to others as well nobody is safe from reality. Oryx is objectively a proven bad source of information that has been known making things up and counting the same example more than once as another example plus outright lying and labeling any lose as default Russian even when it's not possible to be sure or is actually Ukrainian. Again regardless of side or view on things nobody should bother wasting their time with Oryx unless one is knowingly lying to people. Not saying you personally no hate here just need to point this out because it's annoying.
I'm only just pointing out what Oryx is only yes the anti-Russian side media is just making stuff up and are objectively lying to point of insanity and trusting in people not being able to think really. Nor am I'm saying everything is cozy for the Russian side either. The people need to stop buying into BS and find the nuance to things they are covering and think outside of what they think know on the said topic they cover.
I like how you interweave real world design with their implications in Combat Mission, but too many leaps of faith were made relating it to real world doctrine IMHO. Saying that the BMP-2 was made with poor spotting capabilities because that would be compensated by operating in battalion-sized units was the silliest assertion in the video.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Don't ever apologize for "going long" -- sir.
Jus' sayn.
I don't play Combat Mission, but I very much enjoy these unit breakdowns.
Same here, good to watch when I'm eating, like right this moment
Honestly, same. I really appreciate the real world knowledge mixed in with the consistent visuals of gameplay footage.
there are great commnities and battlefront, reddit, and discord so buy a title and join the fun!
Ah, yes, you've actually touched upon my beloved B.M.P.'s feature: no designated vehicle commander.
Everybody gangsta until BAMBAMBAMBAMBAM
Worth noting that the CMSF2 and CMCW BMP-2 is not armed with 30mm APDS, realistically neither would the CMBS BMP-2, full bore APBC is the most common anti armor projectile issued to Russian 30mm.
The Russian 14.5 is a relatively spicy projectile, and the 30mm APBC is a bit lackluster. Which is to say the baseline M2/M3 Bradley's intended resistance to 14.5mm API at short range translate to a shockingly high degree of resistance to 30mm at reasonably short ranges.
The nominal penetration of a 14.5mm bullet on flat armour is very high, but a small-diameter bullet is not at all comparable to a thick-bodied 30mm shell. The armour on the basic M2/M3 was optimized to break up a bullet at a head-on strike using thin spaced steel plates, enough that the 1-inch aluminium base armour can stop the bullet core fragments. Those thin steel plates are not nearly enough to break up a 30mm shell at the same angles and range that they would a 14.5mm bullet.
this is the most comprehensive review of the real-life BMP-2 I have seen. Mini documentary.
Thanks!
In a scenario, I'll use the bmp-2 as a battle taxi first, and then in somewhat of a light tank role, making sure to use terrain to keep them alive longer if possible. the amount of Javelins being used by the Americans is the typical issue for every Russian vehicle. If it's a quick battle, I'm not going to bring the bmp-2, they simply don't justify their cost, I'll pick BTR, or MTLB instead, and even then often times many of those armored vehicles will be replaced by Urals, freeing up more points for things like more artillery, more tanks, etc. terrain, weather, and time of day are all factors but I don't think that the BMP-2 ever makes the cut for me.
Great video as always Hapless! I am always frustrated/confused when watching footage of infantry dismounts riding on top of Russian APCs and IFVs. I understand the ergonomic issues and the lack of protection, but it just seems like such a disconnect between the idea of an armored transport/support vehicle for infantry who then don’t even use/have armor to protect them. I say this as someone who’s 6 foot 3 inches, so I would probably be riding on top anyway 😅
It was very popular with M113s in Vietnam too. The logic apparently being that if the vehicle hits a mine and you're inside, you'll get mulched.
@@usuallyhapless9481 I definitely wouldn’t argue with that logic. I imagine the fix for that would be to have similar mine protection to that of an MRAP. Hell increase the armor all around so you have protection from HMGs, but then you definitely aren’t amphibious which is a major issue. Thankfully I’m not an armored vehicle designer!
riding on top has been done ever since APCs and IFVs were invented. infantry knows first hand the fear of being trapped in a box that is a big target that protects against nothing. a man wants to see and feel things, and be able to scamper to safety on his own decision, instead of eating vaporized aluminum and fuel fumes as he tries to crawl over the dead and thrashing bodies of four men as he tries to get to the back door or ramp . I saw a ukraine video in which a bradley was hit, and the helmet camera clearly showed the toxic smoke filled cabin, and the damn ramp was stuck. My heart pounded as long seconds passed until the small door was opened. How many panicked lungfuls of that stuff ....
If an infantryman sees a ATGM sizzling towards him, he can jump off the vehicle and try to survive. In a big no holds barred war, he's going to get killed anyway, he'd rather die with a chance, than trapped inside. in short, it's seen often because it's "the market working, people voting with their feet". its' the less worse option.
Not neccesarily. ATGM's have a much greater range than small arms, and being on top, they can leave much faster, whilst also helping the BMP with spotting.
@@decimated550 it’s less of a “why is the infantry not doing the correct thing” and more of a “why can’t we get a vehicle that feels safe to be transported in”. The answer to the second statement being that armoring everything like a tank is impractical and still not safe enough in many combat environments. That being said, being trapped in a box is scary but I would personally rather conduct an assault on a trench in a Bradley then a truck or buggy like some units do. That is a rather obvious statement though. Thankfully I’m not the poor guy going into an assault having to make that choice
Get in the 80s nuke wagon, Hapless put out a new video
A couple points:
-The BMP-1 was designed to be frontally protected against 20mm cannon (although more modern 20mm ammunition is more potent)
-In real life laser beam riding missiles shouldn't trigger laser warning receivers, which are more optimised against more powerful lasers used for semi-active laser homing missiles
-The commander's sight in the BMP-2M does not have a thermal optic
Funnily enough I've been rewatching your "Death Ride to Schweben" playlist (excellent series, love it!) and I think your use of the BMPs was pretty good there. Push up behind cover and/or a screen of tanks, to deploy infantry into an objective, then support them.
Unfortunately, it feels like that doctrine probably ended sometime in the 80s as ATGMs became increasingly common and capable (at least for peer conflicts)
Great video as always, thanks Hapless!
I do like that the proper technical term of "gubbins" is being used here.
The most success I've had with BMPs in Black Sea have always been sudden, violent assaults after long periods of scouting and trying to knock down AT threats with artillery etc. They can throw out a hell of a lot of fire, and you tend to have to rely on area fire as the spotting is so poor. Fine if you're assaulting infantry that you sort of know the dispersion of, less fine if you're facing down AFVs.
Hapless vid just before friday-night dinner? Great start to the weekend :)
Touch late this week ;) Too much time blowing up BMPs
@@usuallyhapless9481 don't mind at all, I'm happy you still provide us with your work so regularly. Enjoy your weekend!
I wonder why they gave the BMP2M a 30mm grenade machinegun considering its 30mm cannon will do essentially everything the grenade launcher will do and the grenades will not even have any extra explosive or fragmentation. Seems like fitting a mortar would have been better.
I suspect having a lot of spare AGS-17s might have had a lot to do with it
According to our doctrine the A.G.S. is a better weapon system than a 60mm mortar. Don't ask me why, I don't get it either.
Theory: main gun on AP and for quick HE use the Grenada launcher
Additional instrument of interacting with battlefield. AGS have a different trajectory and velocity of rounds. Autocanon is more of long hand dealing with light targets, AGS grenades are dedicated shrapnel thing.
@@einfachignorieren6156 Nah the 2A42 is dual fed, it can instantly switch from one feed to the other from what I understand.
This thing can definitely be a powerhouse for CMCW under most circumstances. Most of the time the Reds won’t have to face M1s or M2s so all that leaves is M60s and M113s which leave a lot to be desired. Sure the M60A3 TTS gets thermals but in the CMCW context they’re more expensive to field and usually they’re running with T-64Bs/T-80/Bs meaning sabot has a hard time frontally. That being said, combine mechanized forces with T-80bs leading the charge plus BMP-2s with fast firing 30mm that pens M113s like butter and you’ve got a hot mess as a US player. I’ve felt some pretty decent dread spotting one of these while playing CMCW so yeah definitely a product of it’s time.
Yeah, definitely not bad for CW's 79-82 period
Honestly I felt far more threatened by the BMP-1 than the BMP-2 in CW. The cannon of the BMP-1 will actually kill M60s uncomfortably often before the M60 can get its life in order and vaporize the BMP and it will still mulch M113s, buildings and infantry at range, while my M60s were able to deal with BMP-2s in large numbers with little risk to themselves any time they appeared in the campaign without much issues.
No, I definitely didn’t plan my Black Friday around a Hapless video. Why do you ask?
It was Black Friday?
I appreciate the wider look into the reality of the modern battlefield. With the benefit of hindsight, the extra protection of IFV's like the Bradley doesn't really make a lot of difference in direct engagements, because any kind of LAW/RPG can punch through them. Keep in mind that they all have tandem warheads nowadays. And let's be real, if you are close enough to be blown up by an underslung grenade launcher, you probably deserve it.
That said, the paperthin armor of the BMP-2 does make it more vulnerable to artillery fragments then the Bradley, Puma or CV-90, so keep that in mind. (Redeffect made an excellent video about this a while ago.
And like you pointed out, the Russians are aware of it's limitations, which explains why the upgraded variant is virtually absent in the Russian army. It makes much more sense to skip ahead to the BMP-3M.
I expect it would do decently well with the same kind of organisation as the BMP-3 (2 BMP platoons and 1 tank platoon), but it is certainly behind the curve. At some point, it sort of turns into an apc with inferior capacity, because it can't engage anything without being spotted and hit first.
(a slight correction; the vehicle commander also being the squad leader is also present in Canadian LAV formations in shock force 2, and possibly some others as well)
Anyway, excellent video. :)
Yeah, modern AT Weapons are no joke. I may have focused in too much on infantry AT, as opposed to AT in general, but the modern battlefield is a scary place for metal boxes.
@@usuallyhapless9481 And yet, at the same time, those tin cans are needed more then ever, because we can see more then ever before. A footmobile infantry force, is going to be obliterated by indirect fire.
Especially when you consider that, in Ukraine, at least every company has a drone with a thermal, or even each platoon.
@@larsdejong7396 Yep. It's a tough one.
My money's on Powered Armour being the gamechanger (ie. infantry with boosted stamina and speed) but that's a way off
@@usuallyhapless9481 That's Halo level stuff, hapless. XD
@@larsdejong7396 *Ahem* Heinlein level stuff, thank you very much!
It’s the core problem with IFVs. In the defense do I keep the infantry close and risk disclosing their position early? Do I position them as a remote base of fire but then have infantry that’s on foot and separated from their ammo resupply, armor cover from arty, and maybe radios? In the attack do I stay mounted and risk losing whole squads or platoons or do I dismount early and accept the loss of tempo?
It’s important to note that the BMP-2M in Combat Mission Black Sea does NOT have it’s CITV system modeled (and, technically, it isn’t an infrared camera, just a regular one with night vision), and also keeps (game-engine wise) the exact same fire-control system as the original BMP-2
The presence of a CITV on the 3D model and a new FCS (not modeled) makes the BMP-2M appear more capable than the BMP-3 or -3M (since neither has a CITV), but in reality, the BMP-2M lacks any of these features - being modeled as a normal BMP-2 with AT-14s, AGS-30, better smoke, and a gunner thermal
The head of battlefront at the time was a raging moron which can explain these things.
What did they just forget to model the citv?
@@Det_core CITV is modeled (as in, on the 3D model), but the devs apparently forgot that the BMP-2M got a CITV or new FCS (neither are programmed in)
@@AUsernameWeShallMarchToKiev odd thing to forget.
Though to be fire I find that the 2m is pretty snappy regardless
@@Det_core It wasn't forgotten, it was deliberately missed out on. The head of the company at the time had a raging hard on at the time due to what was going in in Ukraine and the game is forever tainted by these things. My previous comment appears to have been deleted despite it being 100% true and demonstrable by going to the company's own forums.
Great video as usual, the BMP-2 is my personal favorite for troop transport
I think it would be important to note that for at least CM:SF2 (I’m not sure if CM:CW’s BMP-2’s get it in lower quality formations), the BMP-2 uses the inferior 3UBR6 APBC-T solid-shot round instead of the 3UBR8 APDS round, which puts the BMP-2’s firepower solidly below certain important penetration thresholds for opponents that it faces.
A very important one (that I learned the hard way when I first downloaded the demo for CM:SF2) was that the Republican Guard BMP-2 cannot penetrate the Bradley, with or without BUSK, from the front AND the sides, at *point-blank ranges*. I had a BMP-2 sitting around a corner, a Bradley stopped ,side-on, ten meters away, and the BMP proceeded to dump three long bursts of AP into the Bradley’s side armour to no effect, pop smoke and reverse for a few meters before being Swiss-cheesed by the Bradley.
The BMP-2 in CM:SF2 cannot compete against Western IFV’s in most cases, in both long (Western IFV’s both have thermals and can reliably hit BMP’s with their auto cannons at ATGM engagement ranges, plus the BMP’s cannot do both ATGM and AC at the same time) and short-range engagements, so it is better used either against lighter formations, such as Stryker infantry (LAV’s too, if you’re feeling lucky and have good positioning) or Humvees. They can also be used as pretty competent building-crushers, as its autocannon wasn’t conceptualized by a British man high on tea leaves.
The BMP-2, in REDvRED combat, is also extremely vulnerable. In CM:SF2, the infamous 58-point MI-24 with both rockets and 12.7 Gatling guns can be spammed to great effect against BMP-2’s, with BMP-3’s being slightly more resistant to the torrents of .50 cal fire (they, like the others, often explode anyways front he compounding effects of dozens of partial pens, spalls and full penetrations) On the bright side, Syrian infantry do not have HEDP warheads on thei AGL’s and rifle grenades, which means that infantry lose much of their anti-armour threat when out of RPG’s. Unfortunately, the BMP-2 gets pretty hard-countered by cheap Kontakt-1 kits, as the vehicles are cheap enough to be plentiful yet highly resistant to the AT-5 (although they are vulnerable to even 30mm AP to the side, so BMP’s aren’t totally helpless.)
(Also, may you consider sharing the sources you have for Soviet Cold War tactics/strategy? I’m looking to do some more detailed reading on the subject)
I stuck to CMBS for the testing, but 2017 Russians having better ammo than 2008 Syrians makes perfect sense.
The tactics sources are FM-100-2-1 and this: www.armyupress.army.mil/portals/7/hot%20spots/documents/russia/2017-07-the-russian-way-of-war-grau-bartles.pdf
today i just learned that the BMP-2's lumpy door was a fuel tank...
“…came out much longer than I anticipated.”
Never a problem, Hapless, but that happens a lot, doesn’t it? 😉
Always a good day when hapless uploads
Wake up babe, HE just dropped another Unit Video!
Husually Epless?
Interesting thing I found in testing the AT-5, it seems to always target the lower front hull from long range. That makes it useful for tanks without ERA on the lower front hull!
Yes, I've noticed the same trend but never been sure whether it's just coincidence. For every other kind of targetting, the gunner aims centre mass. It could be that the missile flies a metre or so below where the AI is aiming.
Maaan i wish I knew this came out before my lunch was about to end 😭. I'll be back
Edit: good vid
Excellent brief - thank you.
could you make one on the dutch or german forces in cmsf 2 thank you
It's on the cards
My favorite tin can.
God I love these videos!
Can't. Get. Enough.
So, I watch them multiple times.
I think the way to think of BMP2s (and all other similar vehicles) in the modern context is as organic infantry support weapons. How do you give a rifle section an autocannon, an anti-tank launcher, and a medium machine gun without over-burdening the troops - the answer, put them on tracks/wheels. The BMP is blind as a bat and will get shredded by a strong wind and a handful of grain thrown into the air, it's not an infantry fighting vehicle and it isn't really an armoured personnel carrier either - but it can excel as a fire support vehicle for the infantry, especially given that you've got one for every section, 3 or 4 for every platoon. When the infantry are making their assault on an objective, the BMPs can be brought to bear to soften up hard targets that the infantry have spotted.
The BMP3 is starting to work towards the IFV concept properly, but it's still too thinly armoured to really do the task. The best the Russians have in that regard is the BMPT but you don't see them very often.
I was thinking of getting combat mission Black Sea but are there any drones in the game?
both sides have recon drones, the US has one large drone that can fire Hellfire missiles (MQ-1C Gray Eagle)
there are no FPV or drones dropping grenades
@omegacentauri73 Thanks! Glad to hear recon drones are in the game. I just got the game.
Drones are in, but the game is set in 2017, not 2022. Drones have come a long way since then!
Love your work Hapless!!! Where did you get all your historical info on the BMP?
A mix of sources, but this one was by far the best: thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2016/05/bmp-2.html
Excellent blog, can't recommend it enough
4.04 - soldiers must stay on top of track tension, otherwise tracks will be on top of soldiers
Also I love-hate the BMP-2M. The turret really straddles the line of looking cool and looking like it was made by a 14 year old, and spiritually it is a perfect metaphor for the creative bankrupcy of post-soviet russia, one step dead set on the stagnant 80s, the other set in the incredibly corrupt 2000s, eternally condemmed to a doom caused by reasons beyond its control
Wow, I didn't realize loaded infantry would fire out of a BMP-2!!!! Never noticed it before. Is that true in CW, BS and SF2?
Seems like fire support first, transport second.
Is the BMPT in any of the Combat Mission games?
No. The game was released in 2014 and set in a hypothetical 2017- even now only a handful of BMP-Ts have been built and even fewer deployed. It's hanging around with Armata in the 'Russia desperately trying to look better than it is' category
These types of videos from you are always great. These vehicle or unit spotlights are awesome and useful. Also, I’m gay.
Wonderful as always Hapless! One quick question, how sure are you that the SL is supposed to dismount with the squad? I've always been taught that the SL stays in the vehicle by default and can even have a dismount leader assigned. I'm not asking for proof or anything, just how confident you are about that information. Thanks!
What is the Russian way to handle mines?
The way most of their doctrine looks like, i wouldn't be surprised if it is by stepping on them.
Most likely calling a fire mission on it.
Brings up Afghanistan but no mention of CMA :(
Sadly no longer available! And I never bought it- only ever played the demo
Could you do a video on the british forces in sf2?
@26:06 regardless if one views the BMP or anything from the old USSR and onward or views of the current war on either side which also goes to others as well nobody is safe from reality.
Oryx is objectively a proven bad source of information that has been known making things up and counting the same example more than once as another example plus outright lying and labeling any lose as default Russian even when it's not possible to be sure or is actually Ukrainian. Again regardless of side or view on things nobody should bother wasting their time with Oryx unless one is knowingly lying to people. Not saying you personally no hate here just need to point this out because it's annoying.
I mean that's the thing with most military nerds online, stuck in the NATO sphere politically...
I'm only just pointing out what Oryx is only yes the anti-Russian side media is just making stuff up and are objectively lying to point of insanity and trusting in people not being able to think really. Nor am I'm saying everything is cozy for the Russian side either. The people need to stop buying into BS and find the nuance to things they are covering and think outside of what they think know on the said topic they cover.
I play squad not this game most of the stuff you said applies , Bradley is better any day
9:53 Putin on the right
I like how you interweave real world design with their implications in Combat Mission, but too many leaps of faith were made relating it to real world doctrine IMHO. Saying that the BMP-2 was made with poor spotting capabilities because that would be compensated by operating in battalion-sized units was the silliest assertion in the video.
Soviets fought en masse, their equipment and doctrine matched this.