Jump to content

Bradley Fighting Vehicle Troop Transport Capacity


Recommended Posts

Hello all, just a quick question here. 

 

To my knowledge, the Bradley can only carry six fully loaded soldiers, but in both CMSF and CMBS they are capable of carrying a full squad of nine soldiers. Is this correct? If not, why are they able to do this when in reality they are not?

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been explained before, IIRC, that the gameplay convenience of being able to transport whole squads, rather than trying to shoehorn bits of squads into not-quite-big-enough Bradleys (with the command track providing the extra space) was more important than making sure the Brads carried only what they can IRL. The important thing was, as I remember it, that a platoon of infantry had the right number of Bradleys. If the troops had a little extra elbow room, it didn't matter much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a former Bradley M2 IFV Master Gunner I can verify (even with the bench seat modification) that the vehicle carries six. Anyone else in there is insanity with each trooper wearing full battle rattle which takes up room between you and your buddies. But we used to pack 12 in a Bradley if the Plt. Leader was leading a flanking attack and wanted as many Bradley's on the Fire Support Team so it looked like the main effort.

 

The reason Battlefront did it that way is to make joining of cohesive units under a command unit much more simple by having to fudge a little instead of making the player join a lot of fragmented sections together so as to avoid morale detraction's from sections split from their parent unit.

 

If it bothers you just imagine three extra replacements sitting on the floor so they don't get left behind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input mech.gato. I'll just assume that the three extra soldiers were crammed in there, stacked on the floor like sardines. 

 

I know that some detract from the Bradley due to its troop transport capacity, but I think its worth it. The Bradley is such an effective vehicle. One of them can suppress an entire enemy position, and a platoon of them working alongside the rifle squads are truly a force to be reckoned with. The personification of fire superiority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im still amazed the soviets and russians made tanks that could get penetrated by flank shots from bradleys. sigh.

Think about it, they also designed tank guns with autoloaders that at times would load the crewman's arm instead of a tank round.

 

Sometimes weapons systems look great in parades, but are not so functional in actual combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep we nicknamed that stunt of packing a crap load of dismounts into one vehicle the "clown car maneuver" when the Lt. would take off with one Bradley to flank the bad guys. Actually there was 14 packed in there because the Plt. Leaders Gunner became the Bradley Commander and a trooper trained to be a Gunner came up into the turret when the Lt. dismounted with 12 and a Squad Leader to help manage the tribe. This was back when the Bradley had individual seating for the dismounts so they used to cram into the passage way from the drivers station to the troop compartment and hold onto whatever. Luckily it was a short trip but the tall guys used to suffer the most.  

 

It usually worked to our advantage because the bad guys would expect at least 6 grunts probing their flank if the Bradley was spotted. But a force of 12 showing up and startling them with a large dedicated assault on their flank caused them to think there was possibly another large force on their flank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thank the jebus I never had to ride in the back of a Bradley but once.

 

 

 

Sometimes weapons systems look great in parades, but are not so functional in actual combat.

 

Yeah.  That said it's sort of mind boggling how many US projects got all sort of project creeped trying to catch up with whatever the parade claims were for the Soviet platforms (see Sheridan vs PT-76, and the mess that came from trying to make the Bradley float because if the BMPs could do it, then SURELY WE MUST MAKE THE IFV SWIM)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about it, they also designed tank guns with autoloaders that at times would load the crewman's arm instead of a tank round.

 

 

Apples and oranges. We are talking a 1960s era vintage platform here don't forget. The same as the MIM-46 of which its munition canisters exploded from the shock of a launch. The fact that the BMP-1 which had this problem is still in widespread service proves it is a capable platform for the job where it is in service. The T-64 had this defect corrected between the T-64 and the T-64A model, a gap of 2 years. It is also still in service and a capable platform in its latest iterations.

Edited by Stagler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure the MIM-46 counts unless it was purchased in bulk and issued to units while exploding.  Also the commonality of the BMP-1* has less to do with capable, and more to do with the cheap as free nature of Soviet military aid.

 

As the case is, arms into breaches are an interesting problem on vehicles that entered serial production, and the speed of the remediation is small solace to that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure the MIM-46 counts unless it was purchased in bulk and issued to units while exploding.  Also the commonality of the BMP-1* has less to do with capable, and more to do with the cheap as free nature of Soviet military aid.

 

As the case is, arms into breaches are an interesting problem on vehicles that entered serial production, and the speed of the remediation is small solace to that.  

 

Neither was the T-64 purchased in bulk until the A version. That's why its the first to appear in Wargame. You should know!

 

 

The Abrams can also be penetrated on the side hull by the latest russian 30mm ammo. You need mobility on a tank. The consequences of a 25mm penetrating the side armor of T- XX are more severe though.

 

That's because of glorious design of carousel autoloader, which they haven't done away with in the T-14 for some stupid ****ing reason. Bustle autoloader best autoloader.

Edited by Stagler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about it, they also designed tank guns with autoloaders that at times would load the crewman's arm instead of a tank round.

 

Sometimes weapons systems look great in parades, but are not so functional in actual combat.

without fueling a NATO tank or Russia tank stronk war, If you are a crewman who has been informed that if you put your arm into the breach area when the tank is loading that it will load your arm in most likely. I mean it is impossible for it to load your arm in if you are sitting properly in. I've searched countless of times for a legitimate arm loading incident it hasnt happened. Stop with this myth.

Edited by VladimirTarasov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

without fueling a NATO tank or Russia tank stronk war, If you are a crewman who has been informed that if you put your arm into the breach area when the tank is loading that it will load your arm in most likely. I mean it is impossible for it to load your arm in if you are sitting properly in. I've searched countless of times for a legitimate arm loading incident it hasnt happened. Stop with this myth.

I have no interest or intention of wanting to start a flame war sir, but there are loads of anecdotal stories about the auto loader on the T-62 and even the early T-72, as well as other shortcomings. No weapons system is perfect on day one, believe me I have seen what bureaucracy and political BS can mean to the men who actually use them.

 

http://tankerslife.homestead.com/Foreign03.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no interest or intention of wanting to start a flame war sir, but there are loads of anecdotal stories about the auto loader on the T-62 and even the early T-72, as well as other shortcomings. No weapons system is perfect on day one, believe me I have seen what bureaucracy and political BS can mean to the men who actually use them.

 

http://tankerslife.homestead.com/Foreign03.html

I didn't mean any offense to you to sir, You are making me feel like I was a bit aggressive sorry if I offended  :D  The T-62, Didn't have a autoloader, But there was a T-64 with the gun of the T-62 which was a prototype which had a auto loader I think. It isn't impossible to happen but if used properly it wont happen at all. Maybe you heard a story, From Iraqi crews that it happened to them? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Neither was the T-64 purchased in bulk until the A version. That's why its the first to appear in Wargame. You should know!

 

Honestly, T-64 is pretty much off my radar.  They were out of frontline service long before I was required to know much at all about Russian tanks, and it's not like there's many T-64s out there in the hands of third world nations.  

 

In terms of arm eating behavior or lack therefore of, there's plenty of safety hazards in most armored vehicles, it just happens Soviet designed ones are especially infamous for them (see the fate of the DDR BMPs when taken over by the unified German government).  

Edited by panzersaurkrautwerfer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its actually not a myth. It certainly didnt happen thousands of times but its not a myth. No i dont have a direct source handy. You do also realize that while you.re not speaking to an ex Soviet tanker you.re speaking to someone who saw heavy combat in Vietnam? Whats your relevant military experience?

Also the Soviet Union was well known to cover up accidents casualty figures and everything in between. Or outright lie. And ok its impossible if your sitting properly what if you.re not sitting properly? what if you dropped something and absentmindedly lurch down to grab it? You honestly think with tanks made in thousands of numbers it never ever happened? pssh. As if Pravda in 1967 would post a front line article about glorious Soviet tanks eating arms.

Edited by Sublime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep we nicknamed that stunt of packing a crap load of dismounts into one vehicle the "clown car maneuver" when the Lt. would take off with one Bradley to flank the bad guys. Actually there was 14 packed in there because the Plt. Leaders Gunner became the Bradley Commander and a trooper trained to be a Gunner came up into the turret when the Lt. dismounted with 12 and a Squad Leader to help manage the tribe. This was back when the Bradley had individual seating for the dismounts so they used to cram into the passage way from the drivers station to the troop compartment and hold onto whatever. Luckily it was a short trip but the tall guys used to suffer the most.  

 

It usually worked to our advantage because the bad guys would expect at least 6 grunts probing their flank if the Bradley was spotted. But a force of 12 showing up and startling them with a large dedicated assault on their flank caused them to think there was possibly another large force on their flank.

 

Clown car maneuver indeed, sounds aptly named! Thanks for your input, I do appreciate hearing first hand accounts like this. I think it helps add a better layer of immersion to the game, and if nothing else this helps me justify this slight fudgework in CM, which is usually realistic down to the last detail. Also, the maneuver sounds very audacious, as the enemy would not expect it knowing the supposed limitations of the Bradley. Patton would be proud. It does sound like it would have been uncomfortable for the soldiers in the back and that it would be a maneuver only done over short terrain, plus I know it gets hot back there. I would suspect that the size of CM battlefields is about the size where this maneuver is viable. Any larger (bigger than 4x4km) probably wouldn't make sense. 

 

As for this developing debate over US vs USSR armor, my first response is, lets see how it would play out with a CM: Fulda Gap game! Personal wishes aside, I think its important to remember that all armored vehicles, even tanks such as the Abrams, are very vulnerable to the sides and rear. They have to be, because not everywhere can be super up armored. The vehicle would be far too heavy, and would sacrifice mobility which is one of the most important aspects of armored vehicles. I know that the Abrams (without ERA) can be penetrated in the side armor by some of the later war tanks of WWII. Soviet era tanks had to deal with the same thing. Not to be patronizing, just pointing out that thin skin on tanks is something that all sides still have to deal with. 

 

As to the auto loader comments, I personally hate the idea of auto loaders. To me, an auto loader is just another mechanical part that can fail. I would rather have tanks without auto loaders than tanks with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, T-64 is pretty much off my radar.  They were out of frontline service long before I was required to know much at all about Russian tanks, and it's not like there's many T-64s out there in the hands of third world nations.  

 

In terms of arm eating behavior or lack therefore of, there's plenty of safety hazards in most armored vehicles, it just happens Soviet designed ones are especially infamous for them (see the fate of the DDR BMPs when taken over by the unified German government).  

 

This is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No i dont have a direct source handy.

 

I did a quick search and found this:

 

Early versions of the autoloader lacked safety features and were dangerous to the tank crews (especially the gunner, who sits nearby): Limbs could be easily caught in the machinery, leading to injuries and deaths. A sleeve unknowingly snagged on one of the autoloader's moving parts could also drag a crewman into the apparatus upon firing.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64which sites this book as the source:

Perrett, Bryan (1987). Soviet Armour Since 1945. London: Blandford Press. ISBN 0-7137-1735-1.

 

The implication being that the auto loader was improved and much safer in later iterations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thx for the backup buddy. im sure the response.ll be HATO PROPAGANDA!! PRAVDA NEVER LIES BECAUSE PRAVDA=TRUTH AND NOVEMBER 10 1967 ISSUE SAY AMERICAN PROPAGANDA LIES ABOUT TANKS EATING ARMS DEATH TO IMPERIALIST CAPITALIST LACKEY DOGS!!!!!

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its actually not a myth. It certainly didnt happen thousands of times but its not a myth. No i dont have a direct source handy. You do also realize that while you.re not speaking to an ex Soviet tanker you.re speaking to someone who saw heavy combat in Vietnam? Whats your relevant military experience?

Also the Soviet Union was well known to cover up accidents casualty figures and everything in between. Or outright lie. And ok its impossible if your sitting properly what if you.re not sitting properly? what if you dropped something and absentmindedly lurch down to grab it? You honestly think with tanks made in thousands of numbers it never ever happened? pssh. As if Pravda in 1967 would post a front line article about glorious Soviet tanks eating arms.

I have lost friends and seen how battle is, My grandfathers and their brothers were in world war 2, My father was in Afghanistan and Chechnya, My uncles participated in Chechnya too. I don't get what you are honoring, Sure I respect him for serving his country in Vietnam but what are you going on about? What do you mean your gonna drop something what will you? What your going to drop something into the loading breech? Who is, the gunner or commander if so, they will know when the tank will shoot and it will load. To me it looks like you are very immature, And you yourself have never had any military experience as you are referring to other people's service. Chill out first of all, And if you have a problem too bad.

 

This is as much as I will talk to you on this topic as you are provocative and I have had enough of people like you on the internet. As if pravda will post about soviet tank eating arms? I am a guy, Who knows people who served in the tanks in the 70s, They havent had any one incident. But you, All the way in your cozy seat seem to know about it? I would understand too if I was some guy who was speaking out of nowhere but I am telling you I have a friend who have served in the tanks when they first came into service. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have lost friends and seen how battle is, My grandfathers and their brothers were in world war 2, My father was in Afghanistan and Chechnya, My uncles participated in Chechnya too. I don't get what you are honoring, Sure I respect him for serving his country in Vietnam but what are you going on about? What do you mean your gonna drop something what will you? What your going to drop something into the loading breech? Who is, the gunner or commander if so, they will know when the tank will shoot and it will load. To me it looks like you are very immature, And you yourself have never had any military experience as you are referring to other people's service. Chill out first of all, And if you have a problem too bad.

 

This is as much as I will talk to you on this topic as you are provocative and I have had enough of people like you on the internet. As if pravda will post about soviet tank eating arms? I am a guy, Who knows people who served in the tanks in the 70s, They havent had any one incident. But you, All the way in your cozy seat seem to know about it? I would understand too if I was some guy who was speaking out of nowhere but I am telling you I have a friend who have served in the tanks when they first came into service. 

Let me save you the trouble and tell you right away. As you are from the "East" (as myself) any personal experience on any matter is irrelevant on these forums. Only western anecdotal evidence is accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he could drop anything. knee jerk reaction to droppinh something important is to reach down to pick it up. Ive seen people do all kinds of incredibly stupid things around dangerous hardware I see no reason why a tank crew perhaps conscripted should be different. You also said correctly sitting in the seat. So you honestly think in thousands and thousands of tanks the gunner always sat in the seat correctly at all times when firing? Or thwre was never some stupid 19 year old goofing off? Yes my post was provocative Im obviously a Western intelligence agent here to smear the reputation of tank auto loaders. no i dont have military experience. however evidence has been provided by someone else. no i have no military experience except being born on a military base in western germany and growing up with a father who.d been in F4Cs in in Vietnam, and was in the military until I was 25 retiring as Lt Col. Your post was provocative too ans reading another of your posts you refer to your squad. if you.ve served in the military, like i asked what your relevant experience is, then hats off to you you.d know more than me though not necesarrilly about some thing 50 years ago. And as for both you and Aurelius what if anything is your friends and families experience in Chechnya, Afghan, GPW but also ANECDOTAL evidence. The Pravda thing was sarcastic of course but sarcasm doesnt translate well over the internet. And Ive lost quite a few friends too, in case you forgot the US has fought wars recently as well. I lost one friend in Iraq in 03, another in Afghan in 09, and another same place in 11.

By the way if this Western bias bothers all of you so much jave you ever stopped amd thought Im on the internet an American creation on an American game companies website? I mean really. You dont like it goto the Russia Today forums or something so you can hear what you want. Im honestly sick of how the Russia Stronk crowd gets super defensive about ANYTHING to do with Russia in a negative way and starts saying the West and NATO and America like we.re a borg like one minded entity. Its as stupid as early US coldwar policy thinking all Communist countries were dictated and controlled by Moscow and aligned as one.

Edited by Sublime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...