You're right to assume the numbers are with no equipment beyond webbing and a personal weapon.
On western vehicles this was at least recognized to an extent in one way or another (we'll take a moment and pretend that firing port seating arrangement on the A-Zero Bradleys came from the same drug fueled bad place . Some vehicles had published load plans calling for rucksacks to be strapped to the outside of the vehicle, the M113A3s with the spall shields had some pretty nice storage space behind them where you could cram a lot of stuff (note, however, my experience on them was as a 19D just before the Brads replaced them, so with only 4-5 guys on a track we were living in luxury -- a full MTOE infantry squad might not feel the same way).
Even then, for really being on sustained campaign, the planners were mostly way overly optimistic -- check info on how and what all US and Aussie M113 crews had stuffed in and strapped onto their tracks in Vietnam, for instance. Won't even talk about trying to have four guys living out of a humvee for weeks on end, as I still have nightmares about that sort of thing.
The Warsaw Pact vehicles, however, missed the boat by another couple orders of magnitude. Even allowing for how the .sovs and allies tended to have smaller troops than their NATO counterparts, seating arrangements were notional even with an absolute basic combat load. And there just wasn't any provision for loading them up real campaigning or major movement.
From what I've read, in Afghanistan, the Soviets ended up running no more than four dismounts in BMPs, using the remaining internal space for personal kit and supplies, and also welded racks and water tanks to the exteriors and top decks of the vehicles (sometimes impairing use of roof hatches and the like).
Based on that factoid, I always figured for T2K purposes, assume that by 2000 no one has more than 50% dismount occupancy in APCs/IFVs (plus all the crap troops will be hauling around).
|