Kropotkin303 | 26 Sep 2015 7:25 a.m. PST |
Hi All, With all the excitement over Team Yankee I was wondering how the BMP1 would perform in general. I guess we've all imagined a surging tide of Soviet tanks with BMP1 mounted infantry coming towards the out-numbered NATO defenders and wondered what part the BMP's Sagger ATGM and turret cannon would play? As I understand it the Sagger was wire guided and it needed eyes-on guidance by the firer until it hit its target. I guess then that doing that from a moving vehicle in the advanced stages of an assault would be very difficult. Could the gun and missile be fired together? Would the gun be used as an anti-armour gun or as an anti-personnel weapon. Thing is I'm trying to point-balance my forces and while my Soviets are using BMP1s and BTR60s my NATO forces use M113s and FV432s. Their armaments are not even worth calculating for at the scale I'm looking to play at. A GPMG or 50 cal gets lost in the ground scale, but, as I understand it, the Sagger had a max range of 3km. So I guess what I'm asking is should I ignore the BMP's weapons or include them and make the BMP "cost" more than a un-armed NATO APC? Any thoughts appreciated. |
Dynaman8789 | 26 Sep 2015 7:40 a.m. PST |
I would not let the BMP fire the gun and the sagger at the same time. The gunner would have to keep the sagger on target till it hit. No moving while a sagger is in flight either. The cannon on the BMP was useful against light armor (APCs like the M113 and M2) and infantry. I would include the BMPs weaponry, it was revolutionary and COULD be a real force multiplier. |
Cold Steel | 26 Sep 2015 7:46 a.m. PST |
The Sagger is primarily a defensive or overwatch weapon. It can't be fired on the move, nor at the same time the gun or coax are fired. BMPs only carried 3 missiles, IIRC, and were awkward to reload, so if you are worried about play balance, limit the number of BMPs that can fire Saggers. I only allow 1/3 of my CWC based BMPs to carry AT-3s. |
Tgunner | 26 Sep 2015 7:47 a.m. PST |
I would think the Sagger would be useful. It has a decent range and a fair warhead. It can defeat older MBTs like the M48/M60 which had around 4-5 inches of steel armor. I would think it could take out nearly anything less than the Challenger/Abrams/Leopard II gang of tanks. Although the Bradley, or any other vehicle for that matter, with slat or reactive armor would be protected against it. The 73mm GROM is a vehicle version of the old 73mm recoilless rifle. It's pretty effective against the same vehicles, especially with its HEAT warhead. It doesn't have a great range though (800-1000m) and isn't accurate on the move (nor can the SAGGER be used on the move either). It's basically a light tank that can carry some dismounts, but it has a lot of limitations which is why the Soviets moved on to the BMP2 and BMP3. However it can be useful so it deserves some reasonable stats. |
nickinsomerset | 26 Sep 2015 8:02 a.m. PST |
No the turret is a one man turret, so either the AT-3 or AT-4 is fired (Stationary) or the 73mm gun. The round fired by the gun is basically an RPG warhead so could be fired at Inf, bearing in mind most of the time it was anticipated that NATO forces would probably be dug in. The BMP was designed to give intimate support to advancing infantry, the 432 to drop the infantry and stop/move to a hide, although it could provide support fire with the GMPG. There is plenty of info on Orbats, there was never any balance! Tally Ho! |
Krieger | 26 Sep 2015 8:19 a.m. PST |
Even though it was supposed to be used against enemy infantry, the soviets weren't impressed by the 73mm HEAT in Afghanistan. Hence the later upgrade to BMP-1PG, formalising the initiative to mount plamya AGL's to the BMP's for better anti-personell performance. The 73mm HEAT would need side shots to have a reliable chance against even older MBT's, golden BB not accounted for. |
Weasel | 26 Sep 2015 8:41 a.m. PST |
I always got the impression that the HEAT cannon round was more of a "Just in case" thing than something that would be relied upon for knocking out vehicles. Though the BMP is very likely to run into enemy APC and light vehicles, where it'd be very effective. |
skippy0001 | 26 Sep 2015 10:05 a.m. PST |
Sagger would be a ambush weapon. |
nickinsomerset | 26 Sep 2015 10:15 a.m. PST |
Some of the classic videos of the 80s were the "Zapod" and "I serve the Soviet Union". The assaults phases were the usual lines of BMPs firing MGs and the main gun with lines of dismounts in between each vehicle, followed by supporting tanks, all to patriotic music, Tally Ho! |
dragon6 | 26 Sep 2015 1:54 p.m. PST |
And the M113's 50 will kill a BMP so don't completely ignore it. |
Kropotkin303 | 26 Sep 2015 2:18 p.m. PST |
Thanks Guys, I get the impression that the BMP should be considered as more than an APC. That's how I see it too. Thing is I'm putting together my forces in 1/300th using Bruce McFarlane's HOTT (Hordes of the thing) Modern variant. It looks like its using each stand (2-3 vehicles) to represent a company and the whole "army" of maybe 12+ stands equals a regiment (McFarlane does give Divisional ORBATS as well).So the ground scale is massively abstracted. Maybe I should class BMP as a kind of low level tank-think Sheridan,Scorpion, PT76 with a ranged attack, but allow them to transport infantry stands. link to the rules QRS link What do you guys think? Nick. You-tubed Zapad. Very good footage. I kept the sound down though. |
Weasel | 26 Sep 2015 2:20 p.m. PST |
Doctrinally, the BMP was intended to accompany troops into the fight and act as an active combat element (which explains why they tend to take heavy losses) rather than taxi and depart. |
seneffe | 26 Sep 2015 2:45 p.m. PST |
A former user described the BMP to me as 'Frankly speaking, a deathtrap'. Very prone, as many Soviet vehicles were, to catastrophic fires and explosions when hit, but more than normally difficult to exit from in an emergency. The BTR was apparently regarded generally as preferable by the troops. Of course, the troops' preference was really neither here nor there….. |
nickinsomerset | 26 Sep 2015 2:47 p.m. PST |
Another way to look at the subject is the CFE treaty definitions where a BMP is classed as a MICV/IFV whereas the 432 and M113 are classed as APCs, A bit like Motorhead the video is not quite the same unless the volume is full on!! Tally Ho! |
Mako11 | 26 Sep 2015 3:00 p.m. PST |
Those little BMPs aren't to be trifled with, even by Main Battle Tanks, in a close-in fight, like 500m – 750m range. Their HEAT rounds pack a heavy punch, which can knock out a tank, but the gun is short-ranged, and lacks stabilization. Since they're so small, they're probably harder to hit, and can hide well, when needed too. As mentioned above, their ATGMs have a long reach, so give them a bit of flexibility. They're certainly better than APCs for combat assaults, and the defending tanks will need to kill both them and their accompanying tanks, preferably at long range, before they become a threat. |
Weasel | 26 Sep 2015 3:43 p.m. PST |
In Afghanistan, it became pretty common to ride ON the BMP, instead of IN it. I don't think an M113 has any better protection but it is far easier to get out of at least. |
Wolfshanza | 26 Sep 2015 11:05 p.m. PST |
My understanding of the system was that the gun was to cover the dead space of the sagger ? The sagger didn't stabilize for about 4-500 yards and something was needed to cover the gap. May be wrong but that's my story and ah'm stickin' to it :) Paul |