Debussing from APCs/IFVs

[Amedeo]

Will the new CMx2 engine allow for "non istant" disembarking of soldiers from AFVs? And will it simulate the various degrees of protection/exposure depending on the type of AFV?

I mean, debussing from a BRT-60PB in inherently more time consuming and potentially dangerous than debussing from a Bradley. Not to speak about injured crewmen abandoning a disabled tank under enemy small arms fire.

How will CMx2 model this stuff?

Regards,

Amedeo

[RMC]

Debussing. Love that term. So...civilized.

Death before debus!

Hmmm. something's missing.

Death before dismount! There ya go. Much better.

[MikeyD]

Instead of 'debussing' you could use 'debarking' - equally awkward word, literally meaning 'getting off the boat'

I was thinking about this too. One animation should serve nicely for 'debarking' a team from the Stryker, Bradley, and (if we get it) M113 and BMP. I suppose a separate common animation could be used for 'debussing' from a M1117 ASV (if we get it), Hummer, or BTR.

[M1A1TC]

The term we use in the Army is "Dismounting"

I do hope there are a lot more infantry animations this time. I asked about it in one of the topics, but didnt get an anwser from developers

[Peter Cairns]

Well I like "Exit" as in " when exiting the aircraft use the door on the right hand side".

Peter.

[Michael Dorosh]

There is a conversation going on at another board about US Armored Infantry tactics in WW II with one poster saying that it was 'common' to right AFVs right up to the objective, which seems at odds with my own perceptions of armoured infantry tactics then.

He backs up his claims with the assertion that modern doctrine for mechanized infantry is to stay mounted until "the last possible moment."

Putting aside the notion that most mech infantry engagements in Iraq seem to be ambush actions vs. insurgents, how accurate is that perception for, say, a deliberate assault on an enemy position? How close will a Stryker get before the infantry squad dismounts?

[Amedeo]

I used the term debussing because I remember many articles on the specialized press during the '80s bragging about how it was faster and safer to "debus" from western IFVs in comparison to Soviet BTRs and BMPs.

Now I want this modelled in the game, and animations should show infantry not merely disembarking from vehicles but debussing!

Bye,

A.

[RMC]

The Brits use debussing. Unless we get Warriors or FV432s in the game, dismounting is it.

re: Stryker and dismounts. The Stryker is just an APC, not an IFV. The IFVs were supposed to keep the infantry on board for much of the fight and dismount them on the objective. That's why they had all those firing ports.

APCs were never intended that way. The Stryker should be used largely like a M113 was, though I don't think the TTP is to have most of the dismount squad exposed during movement like it was for the M113.

[M1A1TC]

It would be sweet to see those back doors swing open on Stryker and have the infantry squad rush out and assume 360 security

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by RMC:

The Brits use debussing. Unless we get Warriors or FV432s in the game, dismounting is it.

re: Stryker and dismounts. The Stryker is just an APC, not an IFV. The IFVs were supposed to keep the infantry on board for much of the fight and dismount them on the objective. That's why they had all those firing ports.

APCs were never intended that way. The Stryker should be used largely like a M113 was, though I don't think the TTP is to have most of the dismount squad exposed during movement like it was for the M113.

Yes, quite, but you haven't really answered the question. So how was the M113 used - or rather, intended to be used on offensive operations against a first world enemy in standard combat operations in a temperate climate? Most references I've seen to the 1980s discuss defensive dismounted tactics.

[Battlefront.com]

RMC has it right. The main difference between an IFV and an APC is how they are used in battle. The APC is a "battlefield taxi", while the IFV is a vehicle designed to be in the thick of the fight. The tactics for dismounting, therefore, are also different. However, there is no hard and fast rule for each as far as I know. They each do what seems to be tactically sound.

In an urban environment during a house cleaning exercise I would expect the differences between IFVs and APCs to be about the same. Infantry dismounted prior to contact, vehicle driving in close support. For static defense I would expect that the IFVs would stay fairly close to the frontline dismounts, APCs to the rear or at least protected from direct engagement by the advancing enemy. When advancing the infantry in IFVs would stay in the vehicle unless absolutely necessary to dismount, while APCs would likely dump their infantry earlier. So on and so forth.

Yes, we will have a lot more animations in CM:SF than in any previous CM game. Will there be an animation for everything? Absolutely not. Too time consuming. Will troops be shown dismounting through opening hatches/doors and what not? Yes. Will the time to dismount be related to the vehicle type and not generic for all vehicles? Yes.

Steve

[M1A1TC]

So, for example, say there is a Humvee with 3 soldiers inside, you will show each one inside the vehicle through the windows, and then when they dismount(I refuse to use debus)each door will swing open and each soldier steps out? That would be the best improvement

Will soldiers be able to get shot through windows?

[akd]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

In an urban environment during a house cleaning exercise I would expect the differences between IFVs and APCs to be about the same. Infantry dismounted prior to contact, vehicle driving in close support. For static defense I would expect that the IFVs would stay fairly close to the frontline dismounts, APCs to the rear or at least protected from direct engagement by the advancing enemy. When advancing the infantry in IFVs would stay in the vehicle unless absolutely necessary to dismount, while APCs would likely dump their infantry earlier. So on and so forth.

Are we speaking hypothetically in relation to established doctrine here, or are we talking about what has developed as practice in Iraq? I see a difference between the two.

[aka_tom_w]

Will troops be shown dismounting through opening hatches/doors and what not?

Yes. !!

Will the time to dismount be related to the vehicle type and not generic for all vehicles?

Yes. !!

WOW! [ Huge Smile ]

that Sounds GREAT!

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Whenever possible we use "reality" numbers instead of what is cited in doctrine. With CM:SF being closely related to what is going on in Iraq right now, as opposed to WWII stuff, we should have an easier time going with "reality".

For multi doored vehicles I hope that we can have all open and all guys get out from their respective seats. We'll just have to see about that. However, in all cases soldiers/crew are positioned in/on vehicles according to where they are supposed to be and in the posture that is correct for that position. The only exception are for positions that can not be seen and therefore it's a waste of polygons. For example, a buttoned up Abrams tank driver will not be represented graphically since the player can't see him anyway. Unbuttoned, of course.

Steve

[akd]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Whenever possible we use "reality" numbers instead of what is cited in doctrine. With CM:SF being closely related to what is going on in Iraq right now, as opposed to WWII stuff, we should have an easier time going with "reality".

For multi doored vehicles I hope that we can have all open and all guys get out from their respective seats. We'll just have to see about that. However, in all cases soldiers/crew are positioned in/on vehicles according to where they are supposed to be and in the posture that is correct for that position. The only exception are for positions that can not be seen and therefore it's a waste of polygons. For example, a buttoned up Abrams tank driver will not be represented graphically since the player can't see him anyway. Unbuttoned, of course.

Steve

How about unbuttoned infantry in Strykers, and if so, can they return fire or just spot?

[M1A1TC]

Awesome, Steve. I am liking this game more and more

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, passengers can unbutton in vehicles that allow for it, such as Strykers and BMPs. This means they can spot and shoot as well as get hit. Firing ports should also be possible to simulate for vehicles like Bradleys and BMPs.

Steve

[MikeyD]

I think Bradley troop fire ports are loooong gone, unless you're backdating the Syrian invasion to around 1988 or so

[akd]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I think Bradley troop fire ports are loooong gone, unless you're backdating the Syrian invasion to around 1988 or so

They left the two on the back, I believe.

[Peter Cairns]

The IFV concept was different than the APC, being designed to allow troops to fight from the vehicle and get in close, as opposed to just a troop transport with better armour than a truck.

Problem was that in use, particularly for the soviet block, against a half decent opponent the loss of IFV were high, with their armour not really up to the task.

The theory that they would role up close and disembark after suppressing the enemy just didn't work in practice.

Therefore what you end up with is a better armed APC that can give better fire support to advancing infantry and better protection when they are in it.

In many respect the tactical doctrine differences between IFV's and APC's are a thing of the past and modern so called IFV's are used like APCs, they are just better armed and armoured.

For me, tactically, they should be treated like helicopters, where ever possible you should get the guys out and dispersed before you start to directly engage an enemy.

One of the big conciderations of course, should be the amount of artillery fire your opponent can bring down on your men as they advance, as the IFV's can't directly suppress that and it can cause heavy casualties.

Peter.

[M1A1TC]

Russian infantry mostly sit on top of their APC, for mine protection. They also have faster deployment this way

[ December 01, 2005, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: M1A1TankCommander ]

[MikeyD]

Sounds just like G.I.s and their M113s in Vietnam, and for the same reason! I can't quite imagine soldiers being perched up on the back of a Bradley.

[M1A1TC]

Russian APCs are about half the height of Bradley

[RMC]

Not as much deck space on a Brad because of the turret size.