ICV/IFV passengers on the roof?

[Cpl Steiner]

One big difference between the WWII and the modern battlefield is the replacement of open-top armoured troop-carrying vehicles with fully enclosed ones. However, from photos I've seen of BMP-2s in Chechnya, often soldiers sit on the roof as well as in the passenger compartment. I also remember seeing a Russian documentary in which the soldiers said they preferred being on the roof in case of mines.

I hope in CM:SF this is taken into account and you are allowed to use the roof of an ICV/IFV for passengers. In theory, you could have part of a squad inside and part on the roof, or a small squad inside and a separate support team on top, etc. Whether you'd want to do this and expose the men on top to enemy fire is another matter!

[Battlefront.com]

I have never seen a picture of a US soldier sitting on the top of a Stryker. And the thing about Russians on the roof of their APCs is more a "getting to/from the battle" and not a during the battle tactic. The reason is that as soon as small arms fire starts up being on the roof is really not a good idea, so you'll take the risk of mines at that point.

So at present time I don't think we will support infantry on top of APCs.

Steve

[offtaskagain]

How about more than one crewmember out of a hatch at a time? From experience here in Iraq, Stryker and LAV scouts tend to be in their hatches at all times while mobile both for extra eyes and to cool off. M1A1 loaders are usually on their M240G as well, since firing the main gun is definitely a rarity these days. Also, I noticed in previous threads some other things I can address quick. These apply specifically to USMC vehicles and weapons but I wouldnt be suprised if the Army is doing the same. M1A1s have already under gone alot of modifications discussed on this forum. The loader has gotten a gunshield, the sights have been upgraded and a phone is supposed to be mounted on the rear for easier infantry coordination. I have yet to see the phone but I have seen the rest. The gunshields I've seen on Abrams are of the glass variety, which is what the HMMWV is also moving to. There is also a new glass turret for HMMWVs and trucks to replace the older slab sided or rounded ones. That one comes with the glass gun shield. It was originally intended to mount on the 7 ton truck but it fits perfectly well on a HMMWV gun truck so some units are mounting them on those as well. It gives the gunner better visibility all around while staying behind armor. I also saw something about AT-4s not being very common. I can say that they are very common in the units I've been with. Most gun trucks will carry one for the gunner, just in case. Theyre also very common in guard towers. Shotguns are also still carried. We mostly have moved to the XM1014 model but there are still some Remington 870s floating around. It's true their main use is as a door knocker, but I've known Marines who've fired them in anger as well. I've got photos of all the mods and stuff I've mentioned so if clarification or evidence is need I can provide it.

[ September 04, 2006, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]

[rudel.dietrich]

I know in the BW riding on the outside of a APC was a huge no-no.

As a RPG or ATGM gunner you would like to see nothing better than a infantry squad riding an APC!

[Londoner]

On the other hand designers might want to simulate "in transit" scenarios, at least in part, and it is after all plausible, if not particularly sensible or practical. Additionally it can't be exploited, even in CMx1 look what happens to exposed infantry on vehicles when they get a whiff of small arms fire, and surely it can't be difficult/time consuming to code?

[Cpl Steiner]

Just in case anyone thinks I'm making this up (heaven forbid!): -

I admit these are all shots of BMPs, so in theory it might only be an option for Syrian forces in CM:SF.

Whilst I take Steve's point that anyone sitting on top of a BMP obviously isn't expecting an imminent contact, IMHO for realism's sake, if it's possible, then it would be nice if the game engine supported it.

Another factor to consider (and this may just be me) is that it adds to the realism of the game if hardware is sometimes used in inappropriate ways. Half a dozen guys lounging on top of a BMP definitely fits into this category!

[hellfish]

They're riding on the outside becaus etheir biggest threat is mines/IEDs. If there was a direct fire threat, they'd either be outside walking or inside throwing up.

[Battlefront.com]

Cpl Steiner,

Whilst I take Steve's point that anyone sitting on top of a BMP obviously isn't expecting an imminent contact, IMHO for realism's sake, if it's possible, then it would be nice if the game engine supported it.

Sure, if it was a freebie to add we most likely would. However, contrary to Londoner's guess... it is not trivial at all. It isn't just the programming, it is the animations that are needed to go along with it. One of the downsides of having a more realistic looking game is having to make it realistic looking

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Steve,

So I guess troops riding on top of tanks are out too, as surely the animation would be the same? I can't see the next version of CMx2 (WWII setting) being at all realistic with no tank-riding infantry.

I wish there was a pool of game-mad animators ready to jump in and offer their services for free but we all know that isn't going to happen.

Maybe in the first add-on?

[rudel.dietrich]

I cant think of any modern army in the world that troops would ever ride a tank unless it was a dire emergency.

There is no reason for it to be in the game for the sole fact that it does not happen enough to warrent its inclusion.

[rudel.dietrich]

And in those pictures, that BMP is not moving.

They are taking a rest on it becasue it looks damn cold where they are.

I slept many a night on a Marder and Leopard. They stay warm for hours after you shut them off.

[Cpl Steiner]

I was merely making the point that in CMx1 we could put squads on top of tanks and now it looks like in CMx2 we can't - regardless of what is "official" policy. This seems a bit retrograde. I don't mind that much as Steve has already said he would have such a feature in the game but for the fact that it would require a lot of work. That is a more genuine answer than "it hardly ever happens so you can't do it". My point was that the engine is going to have to do WWII some day, and I'm pretty sure that troops rode on tanks quite a lot in WWII - especially in the Soviet army. In any case, as you could do it in CMx1, people are sure going to miss it regardless of the arguments.

[hellfish]

Well... there is a specific way to load troops onto an M1, but it is almost never, ever done. Thats what Bradleys are for.

[LongLeftFlank]

I seem to recall that in Vietnam it was standard grunt practice in US cav and armour units to ride atop the M113s, not in them, for the same reasons cited above (better to risk a bullet in the open than spalling/fire from a mine or RPG inside a metal box).

[Battlefront.com]

Cpl Steiner

I was merely making the point that in CMx1 we could put squads on top of tanks and now it looks like in CMx2 we can't - regardless of what is "official" policy. This seems a bit retrograde.

Not really. We've never put stuff into any of our games simply because "in theory it could be done". In WWII infantry rode on tanks all the time since the number of armored personnel carriers were extremely small. For the Soviets they were practically non-existant. So when we do WWII we will have to allow troops ontop of various vehicles.

I wish there was a pool of game-mad animators ready to jump in and offer their services for free but we all know that isn't going to happen.

Unfortunately not We have 2D artists offering their time in excess of our needs. But 3D artists are hard to find and 3D animators... haven't had one approach us yet.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

offtaskagain,

Thanks for the info. VERY good stuff to have. We've started seeing the gunshields pop up on Abrams too. You'll be happy to know that both MGs on an Abrams top can be crewed and operated independently of each other. Default behavior for Strykers is for two guys to be standing up through the top rear hatches watching sides and rear. They can fight from these positions independently of the main weapon (usually RWS).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, there is another reason you see guys riding on top of BMPs and BTRs. Anybody here been inside of one? Like all Soviet equipment, they weren't built with Human comfort in mind The BMP is atrotiously cramped and not air conditioned. So until it is "Go Time" the infantry usually ride on or at least up through the hatches.

One thing to remember, guys, is that Syrians aren't going to be encountered in their AFVs very often. By default they will be on the defensive and nobody will be sitting in a tin can with a bullseye painted on it. Heck, if Iraq is any indication even the driver and gunner won't be in it

Steve

[Sergei]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

I cant think of any modern army in the world that troops would ever ride a tank unless it was a dire emergency.

I have done that in modern times, and it wasn't a dire emergency - it was peace time. There is no reason why that shouldn't happen. However, that happening in combat (except when ambushed) would be odd, unlike during WW2 when it was a necessary tactic.

Another reason for men taking a hike on top of a BMP, in addition to those mentioned, could be that the vehicle is full already. Either of men or cargo.

At least the above BMP is moving. See the dust, see the flag flowing to the direction opposite to movement.

[MikeyD]

Troops-on-roof would be a must if BFC did a Vietnam war game (which they're unlikely to do) or if they return to the Eastern Front with its Russian tank-mounted infantry.

But Infantry don't seem to ride on Abrams ('cause the engine deck's too hot). And they don't seem to ride top-side on Bradley ('cause there's no place to sit). And they don't ride top-side on Stryker probably because th vehicle's so fast and tippy that you're likely to be pitched off in a turn!

And Syrians probaly wouldn't get to ride up-top much because everything moving within 20 miles of the front line would soon be a flaming wreck anyway.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

And Syrians probaly wouldn't get to ride up-top much because everything moving within 20 miles of the front line would soon be a flaming wreck anyway.

I think you overestimate the competence of the USAF (but thats OK, everyone seems to). There were several engagements in OIF when large Iraqi mechanized units got the drop on American forces, but their own incompetence doomed them to failure. Look up the Battle at Objective Peach (I think it was - my reference books are at home). A T-72 battalion ambushed US forces but their gunnery was so atrocious that the US element (A tank/Bradley company IIRC) returned fire and destroyed the Iraqis with no loss to themselves.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, I'm sure tht was Peach. IIRC the US forces knew the Iraqis were on the way, but for some reason they weren't able to get them interdicted effectively.

Steve

[MikeyD]

"I think you overestimate the competence of the USAF"

I guess Joint Stars battlefield radar only works properly if the only moving targets on the battlefield are military. Driving a couple dozen T72s up to the front might be doable if there's a couple thousand frantic civilian autos on the road at the same time. Including significant Syrian armor in the game might be reasonable if we imagined they were prepositioned and effectively concealed before hostilities.

About that large Iraqi mechanized unit that got the drop on the U.S. at war's start, I wonder - was that the division(?) that was targetted by a massive B52 strike... but the B52s dropped onto the wrong neighborhood due to bad intel?