Eugen Systems Forums

Also video game simulations should not be used as basis for realism in other video games that approximate different thing from real life with their own internal balance.

Yakhont wrote:M2 Bradley is higher and more visible than any BMP.

Visibility doesn't matter if we're talking about a vehicle's ability to withstand a hit.

He's also likely making an argument that the Bradley's bigger, therefore the internal volume means there's a greater distance between critical equipment as well as better access for dismounts. Orc's already batted at that mode of thought.

QUAD wrote:@Yakhont size of the vehicle, location of the ammo, and I think engine compartment. Whenever I play CM: BS knocked out M2A3 Bradley's typically are able to dismount an entire squad, while knocked out BMP-3s have 1-2 survivors at most usually.

Wow. Using such incredibly biased video game as argument about RL is... Strong.

Kasrkin229 wrote:the US get's shafted in almost every category.

Tell this to USSR, who has tank with 125mm smoothbore cannon with full integrated automatic FCS, which shoot at less range with less accuracy that US tank with 105mm and Mk.1 Eyeball system.

PzAz04Maus wrote:

Yakhont wrote:M2 Bradley is higher and more visible than any BMP.

Visibility doesn't matter if we're talking about a vehicle's ability to withstand a hit.

He's also likely making an argument that the Bradley's bigger, therefore the internal volume means there's a greater distance between critical equipment as well as better access for dismounts. Orc's already batted at that mode of thought.

The greater distance is so minor to any projectile that travelling an additional 1 or 2 metre is not going to degrade the energy of any lethal projectiles.

I would say the dismount speed or less the same given that 5 men in the Bradely use the rear ramp and 8 men in a BMP-1 use the rear double doors only. Counting the top doors, I say the BMP-1 has greater dismount access.

Most of these points are only partially relevant to the game though, as dismount speed and volume don't really affect unit stats.

The critical question that comes with DLC is: should internal layout like the engine count a significant armour and how does it interact with systems already present? e.g. engine crits.

Yakhont wrote:The greater distance is so minor to any projectile that travelling an additional 1 or 2 metre is not going to degrade the energy of any lethal projectiles.

It's not the thickness he's talking about, it's the volume of critical parts to empty space. Against pure KE, that might be modestly valid for something approaching War Thunder's model, but other than that I don't feel it'd be an easy argument to make.

PzAz04Maus wrote:He's also likely making an argument that the Bradley's bigger, therefore the internal volume means there's a greater distance between critical equipment as well as better access for dismounts. Orc's already batted at that mode of thought.

Like I said, Orc's already been batting at that.

Most of these points are only partially relevant to the game though, as dismount speed and volume don't really affect unit stats.

Orc's already batted at that mode of thought.

The critical question that comes with DLC is: should internal layout like the engine count a significant armour and how does it interact with systems already present? e.g. engine crits.

If that concept gets accepted, Red Dragon isn't going to dish out more engine crits. That system is likely entirely divorced from vehicle types except whether they're tracked, wheeled, rotary, straight wing, or seaborne.

Whole lot of people took Pentagon Wars as a documentary it seems

GARGEAN wrote:

Kasrkin229 wrote:the US get's shafted in almost every category.

Tell this to USSR, who has tank with 125mm smoothbore cannon with full integrated automatic FCS, which shoot at less range with less accuracy that US tank with 105mm and Mk.1 Eyeball system.

Sorry bud but thar actually does go for the US too.

Also lol @ the bradley sucks. No, no it really doesn't.

Killertomato wrote:
Sorry bud but thar actually does go for the US too.

Also lol @ the bradley sucks. No, no it really doesn't.

I know it perfectly, but saying "muh Murrica is bad and underrated" is not really fair, don't ya think?

HrcAk47 wrote:What are "advanced electronics"? Details on the FCS?

Can you bear the fact that Bradley of the period was F-35 of the day - an expensive and useless stillborn only saved by the fact it no longer had to fight anything capable.

If you really want to know, all bradleys came with a thermal sight, which was an expensive piece of equipment in 1982. Bradleys also had vertical stabiliers for the gun and horizontal stabilization for the turret. The FCS had an integrated laser rangefinder and solid state ballistics computer.

Basically, if the Abrams had a piece of electronics, so did the Bradley. The cost for the two was within a million dollars of each other despite the Abram's much greater weight and armor arrays.