You say BMP-C, I say BMP-3.

[Tegyrius]

My PCs are heading in the general direction of Czestochowa and there's a non-zero chance they're about to bump into Shotkin's marauder crew around Radomsko. While setting up my battlemaps and referee notes for that contingency, I was reminded that the BMP-3 is one of the predictions where GDW went somewhat astray.

The first edition boxed set gave us the BMP-C, which it portrayed as an upgraded model of the BMP-B. The distinguishing features of the -C were a better rangefinder, an AGS-17, an eighth troop seat, some minor armor increases, and slightly higher weight, fuel capacity, and fuel consumption.

In second edition, GDW switched the nomenclature to BMP-2 and BMP-3, probably reflecting open-source intel that had become available in the seven years since the boxed set's release. Second edition's BMP-3 was a direct port of the one from first edition.

It wasn't until the v2.2 core book and the East Europe Sourcebook that we got a game-world BMP-3 which matched the real-world design with its 100mm low-pressure gun/launcher. Of course, GDW still seems to have assumed production numbers vastly greater than what the real-world post-Soviet factory managed to crank out.

All of which is to say - which BMP-3 do you guys prefer in your T2k universes? Do you cleave to verisimilitude and deploy 100mm-armed BMP-3s with your formerly-Category-A marauders, or do you prefer GDW's incremental upgrade of the BMP-2 for supply chain simplicity?

- C.

[.45cultist]

Get both? Perhaps an upgraded B/2 like the AKMR concept to augment BMP-C.

[Bestbrian]

Going off what we're seeing in Ukraine, I'd be tempted to give them an MLTB with some kind of rube goldberg'd naval turret.

[Raellus]

I prefer to include the RL BMP-3 over v1's BMP-C, mostly because the speculative C variant is too similar to the B (i.e. BMP-2). In my head-canon, distribution of the three IFVs looks like:

Cat 1 Guards TDs: BMP-3
Cat 1 non-guards TDs: BMP-2 (maybe a few BMP-3)
Cat II TDs: BMP-2
Cat III TDs: BMP-1
Mobilization only TDs: whatever they can pull from deep storage, or cobble together in the field. For example,

Originally Posted by Bestbrian

Going off what we're seeing in Ukraine, I'd be tempted to give them an MLTB with some kind of rube goldberg'd naval turret.

But your OP question raises a larger one. When given the choice between v1's speculative AFVs and the RL versions, which do you prefer? Off the top of my head, there's there's the v1 T-90 with its crew-less turret vs. the RL T-90 with its more conventional layout, and the the M1A2- v1's turret-less "giraffe" version vs. the RL M1A2 which is an incremental upgrade of the M1A1.

Part of me really appreciates the creativity of the v1 team, and wants to include their speculative variants. The other part of me yearns for as much verisimilitude as possible, so leans towards the RL versions.

-

[Bestbrian]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I prefer to include the RL BMP-3 over v1's BMP-C, mostly because the speculative C variant is too similar to the B (i.e. BMP-2). In my head-canon, distribution of the three IFVs looks like:

Cat 1 Guards TDs: BMP-3
Cat 1 non-guards TDs: BMP-2 (maybe a few BMP-3)
Cat II TDs: BMP-2
Cat III TDs: BMP-1
Mobilization only TDs: whatever they can pull from deep storage, or cobble together in the field. For example,



But your OP question raises a larger one. When given the choice between v1's speculative AFVs and the RL versions, which do you prefer? Off the top of my head, there's there's the v1 T-90 with its crew-less turret vs. the RL T-90 with its more conventional layout, and the the M1A2- v1's turret-less "giraffe" version vs. the RL M1A2 which is an incremental upgrade of the M1A1.

Part of me really appreciates the creativity of the v1 team, and wants to include their speculative variants. The other part of me yearns for as much verisimilitude as possible, so leans towards the RL versions.

-

I tend towards the real world, except when something was pretty cool. I think the Giraffe M1 was dumb (that fourth body in the crew is just too useful and tied into so many other aspects of doctrine), but the LAV-75 was sweet. However, I must also confess that I was never enamored with vehicles, which is why I invariably ran cavalry campaigns. Having a much greater appreciation for the importance of logistics nowadays, I'd probably err towards increasing the rarity of military vehicles not actively maintained by an organized military unit with a supply line, and having the ubiquitous marauders and deserters using a lot more civilian vehicles.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

All of which is to say - which BMP-3 do you guys prefer in your T2k universes? Do you cleave to verisimilitude and deploy 100mm-armed BMP-3s with your formerly-Category-A marauders, or do you prefer GDW's incremental upgrade of the BMP-2 for supply chain simplicity?

- C.

The eigth troop seat never made sense. Adding one seat means either ripping stuff out or enhancing internal volume by enlarging the dimensions of the vehicle. Additionally, an eighth seat is unnecessary, unless one changes all small unit tactics and doctrine in an army. The Soviets clearly never went the way of US fire teams and we know armored infantry can work other than US armored infantry, because the German Bundeswehr operates at six persons per IFV and keeps them together like the Soviets/Russians and not splitting them up like the US does.

I get the 40 mm AGL, the Soviets did something similar with some BMP-1s in Afghanistan already. It's a good anti-infantry set-up and it circumvented the problem that their 73 mm low pressure gun sucked in all aspects: range, accuracy and rounds per minute.

The actual BMP-3 rightfully never supplanted the BMP-2, because it tries to do to much on to small a frame and with no clear purpose: The low pressure 100 mm still has an abysmal effective range of just around 300 m. It's only benefit is the ability to fire ATGMs, but of course they're limited in caliber and it's a laser-beam rider. The 30 mm has decent range out to 2,000 m, but no good APFSDS is available in the relevant time frame. Optics are okay for daylight combat, but nighttime optronics are not on par with Western IFVs.

As all BMPs so far, the BMP-3 is super cramped and a menace to its crews. Also, the flat turret and the bad ergonomics give poor overall situational awareness.

The best one can do to it is install a new and better turret package plus some good ERA, preferably Kontakt-5 or better.

If that's not available, mix both, the GDW and the historical approach: Add a laser range finder, armor and fuel. Then keep the autocannon of the BMP-2 and its ATGM. An AGL can be added instead of the PKT in a 1:3 ratio (i. e. 1 per platoon) for additional anti-infantry capabilities. That would be an Afghanization of the GDW BMP line.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

The best one can do to it is install a new and better turret package plus some good ERA, preferably Kontakt-5 or better.

Can't do heavy ERA like Kontakt-5 on a BMP's underlying armor. It'll damage the vehicle when it goes off. I'm not sure exactly how badly, but the impression I got was that it would drive backplates through the hull. BMP-3 can only (so far) carry Kaktus, which according to the manufacturer is equivalent to Kontakt-1.