APC/IFV Passenger Capacities

[Panther Al]

In short: How realistic are those numbers?

I've seen the seating drawings used to base the official numbers on, and they are always of soldiers with no kit on, and often enough the seats are pointing in all sorts of directions to fit as many in as possible. I am somewhat familiar with CFV version of the Bradley, and its not too far from reality, though the seating layout for the IFV version I always felt was more akin to wishful thinking than to what wold actually work in combat with troops in full battle rattle.

In your opinions and experiences, whats the real passenger allowances for the various APC/IFV's out there? Particularly when it comes to the Marder, Warrior, CV90, the LAV, and such like?

[weswood]

If you're talking about what is stated in the published rulebooks, I'd double check them. I think it was the BTR 80 that the rulebook stated had a passenger capability of 18, it's closer to 8 in real life.

[Panther Al]

No, More real world than game. Just like how parachutes was designed for (If I recall correctly) 180 pound loads, they never see anything so light in real world use. Same goes for seating, Sure, you can fit 11 guys in the back of a 113, provided they are not wearing anything other than BDU's. But in the real world, its more like 8 when wearing battle rattle.

[weswood]

It may be that the average size of man is increasing as the years go by. I recently watched a show describing Teddy Roosevelt was described as a big man at 5'9" and 200#. I'm 5'7 and considered average. I weigh in at #200, but that's 40 lbs more than when I was in the Corps.

I seem to remember reading that average weight of a soilder during WWII was about 150 lbs.

Then again, it may be I'm talking out my butt and don't know a thing

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by weswood

It may be that the average size of man is increasing as the years go by. I recently watched a show describing Teddy Roosevelt was described as a big man at 5'9" and 200#. I'm 5'7 and considered average. I weigh in at #200, but that's 40 lbs more than when I was in the Corps.

How can you be 5'7" and average when I'm 5'8" and have always been considered short? I'm down to 165, but that still 20 pounds more than I weighed in the Army and I'm sure there's a much greater fat-to-muscle ratio...

[weswood]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

How can you be 5'7" and average when I'm 5'8" and have always been considered short? I'm down to 165, but that still 20 pounds more than I weighed in the Army and I'm sure there's a much greater fat-to-muscle ratio...

Well, I've always considered myself average height. What I originally posted was exactly that: I'm considered short. I don't know why I changed it.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

How can you be 5'7" and average when I'm 5'8" and have always been considered short? I'm down to 165, but that still 20 pounds more than I weighed in the Army and I'm sure there's a much greater fat-to-muscle ratio...

In my homeland of New Zealand I'm dead average height at 5'10". Here in Australia most of my male friends are 6' plus. I'm pretty sure average heights here in Australia are getting bigger. I regularly see high school kids on the bus that tower over me. Heck, my ex (my daughter's mother) is 6'1".

[pmulcahy11b]

For the Bradley A0 and A1, we were told 3+7 dismounts. Uh-huh. That's getting pretty cramped, and that's if you put almost every bit of equipment strapped to the sides -- including most of the extra ammo for the small arms and even most of the Dragon reloads (that's what we had at the time). If you have the bad luck to be in the "suicide seat" behind the driver, you are there because you small enough with your gear on to be forced into a tiny hole between the driver and the turret basket (yep, it was usually me), and when we dismounted, the job of the guy in front of me was to literally rip me out in case of a quick dismount, because I couldn't get out fast myself. And then I had to grab a Dragon on the way out!

It's better to stow some gear in that spot.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

For the Bradley A0 and A1, we were told 3+7 dismounts. Uh-huh. That's getting pretty cramped, and that's if you put almost every bit of equipment strapped to the sides -- including most of the extra ammo for the small arms and even most of the Dragon reloads (that's what we had at the time). If you have the bad luck to be in the "suicide seat" behind the driver, you are there because you small enough with your gear on to be forced into a tiny hole between the driver and the turret basket (yep, it was usually me), and when we dismounted, the job of the guy in front of me was to literally rip me out in case of a quick dismount, because I couldn't get out fast myself. And then I had to grab a Dragon on the way out!

It's better to stow some gear in that spot.

Yeah, the bradley's suicide seat is a perfect example of what I am looking for. Sure: Its a place for one trooper, but in the real world, shouldn't be used for anything but stowage. Wasn't named that as well as the hell hole for nothing. As far as stowage being an issue, just look at the pics I posted in the Artwork Thread. And thats with the M3: Seats +3, we had no more than 2, and still had to strap a crapload of stuff on the outside.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

No, More real world than game. Just like how parachutes was designed for (If I recall correctly) 180 pound loads, they never see anything so light in real world use. Same goes for seating, Sure, you can fit 11 guys in the back of a 113, provided they are not wearing anything other than BDU's. But in the real world, its more like 8 when wearing battle rattle.

Actually, the M113 can fit up to 14 in the back (in addition to the crew), including webbing, packs, radios, the lot.
Been there and done it, and conducted the tactical enbus and debussing drills as well. EVERY bit of kit was squeezed inside the vehicle with only the usual cam net and single roll of barbed wire on the outside.
AND it was the Australian version of the M113 - the one with a turret basket taking up internal space.
Not saying it was easy, or comfortable, but if can be done if everyone is REALLY close friends.

[ArmySGT.]

Now this is an APC!

M2HB
M240
60 MM Mortar.

Mmmm Goodness

Smoke dischargers

and the new active defense set ups that shoot down ATGMs.

[Legbreaker]

I look at that and think, "wow, what a big target!"
Hope it's got good armour because it sure can't hide!

[HorseSoldier]

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).

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Actually, the M113 can fit up to 14 in the back (in addition to the crew), including webbing, packs, radios, the lot.
Been there and done it, and conducted the tactical enbus and debussing drills as well. EVERY bit of kit was squeezed inside the vehicle with only the usual cam net and single roll of barbed wire on the outside.
AND it was the Australian version of the M113 - the one with a turret basket taking up internal space.
Not saying it was easy, or comfortable, but if can be done if everyone is REALLY close friends.

I'd hate to be one of those unfortunate 14 to be crammed into an M113 on a long ride, and someone suddenly says "Oh man, I gotta take a s**t...."


Of course, it could be just as bad, or worse if he said, "I don't feel so good..." PUKE!
I've heard M113's on long rides are pretty uncomfortable and vomit-inducing in some cases, true?

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

I'd hate to be one of those unfortunate 14 to be crammed into an M113 on a long ride, and someone suddenly says "Oh man, I gotta take a s**t...."

It wasn't so bad actually, but then I was one of the fortunate ones to get a seat with four standing out the hatch (on a pile of packs). If we'd had to button up, it may have been a bit different and friendships would truely have been tested!

Originally Posted by Schone23666

I've heard M113's on long rides are pretty uncomfortable and vomit-inducing in some cases, true?

Overall I quite liked the realtively smooth ride of the M113 - in straight lines it almost glided over the ground more smoothly than most wheeled vehicles. Corners though, even small adjustments in direction are a little on the "intense" and "sudden" side of comfortable.

As the section machinegunner, I had two positions available to me - a seat by the ramp, or standing in the hatch, machinegun resting on the hull ready for use. The section commander (Corporal) and No1 scout also had dedicated hatch positions to allow situational awareness.

Inside might have been problematic for long rides simply due to being unable to see, but by rotating the passengers through the hatch you can minimise the potential for motion sickness. Four men can comfortably stand, but if everyone is very thin and take off their webbing, up to six.

A big part of fitting everyone in comfortably is having a vehicle crew who know how to pack the vehicle and minimise their own personal gear to only what they NEED so as to free up storage space for the infantry. It seems that many vehicle crews see the entire vehicle as "theirs" and the infantry they carry as just temporary hitch hikers to put up with for only as long as they absolutely have to.