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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by weswood

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.

The ghosts in the machine...

[ArmySGT.]

Your gonna need crisco and a shoe horn to get the personnel the manual says you can carry, plus the MTOE it has now inside, not as visualized in 1975.

Only now are they starting to design equipment with soldiers in battle rattle. Like seats and hatches.

Been waiting for the trailer with remote release.

Why could they do that in the 1940s but can't in 2011?

[Panther Al]

Yeah, I always though it was rather short sighted to design things so they was best used by troops in garrison mode, no kit, no weapons, no body armour, no belongings, etc...

Its something I always had to shake my head at when it came to getting ready to roll north, we had so much strapped to the outsides of our vehicles you could hardly make out what sort of track it was under it all.

[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".

[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!

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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

It's a Merkava AFV without the turret. You don't get much better armoured than that!

[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).

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

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).

The difference I see though is that the Soviets in the Afghanistan has plenty of BMPs to go around so they could afford lower passenger numbers. They won't have that luxury in T2K and will probably need all the carrying space they can get.

[Legbreaker]

True, that's the chassis, but the armour isn't.
Looks like they made some significant changes to the internal layout also - is that an engine of some kind at the rear right?
One other issue I don't like about it is the very limited access ramp at the back - most APCs have a nice wide ramp which allows at least two people out at a time, this one is single file only.

The picture in that site which had me scratching my head was towards the bottom - an APC with infantry access out the front of the hull. That's got to be an open invite for a few bursts of fire which with luck could rattle around inside and chew things up.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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

Formerly a Merkava Mk1. Now the turret is removed and the internal configuration redesigned as an APC or Ambulance.

I love the Israeli attitude of recycling equipment.

[Legbreaker]

From what I could see, it looks like they've either fabricated from scratch based on the Mk4 (as per the website seems to indicate), or stripped it back to bare bones before rebuilding. If the latter, then there's absolutely no requirement for them to replace the same armour panels, and in fact with the obvious layout changes, it wouldn't make any sense. My guess is a whole new armour "skin" was produced, possibly thinner and lighter to improve the vehicle's performance - you generally don't need tank armour on an APC.

And Targan, welcome to the 2,000+ post club.

[ArmySGT.]

Repost from another forum.

Hi,
There are two distinct reasons why the IDF does not mount turreted 30 mm cannon and the like on its APCs and heavy tank based carriers. (I am not talking about the use of Gatlings and other rapid fire weapons,mounted on AFV platforms, but regular troop carriers.)

The reasons are -
Firstly, doctrine. Secondly, costs.

Doctrine. The IDF do not believe in the IFV. They would rather use APCs as a battle taxi, to deliver infantry onto an objective where they disembark and fight. IFVs are seen as expensive, over-complex and vulnerable. The job of fending off enemy MBTs and IFVs is left to tanks accompanying Israeli APCs.

Indeed the IDF has drawn the sensible conclusion that if anything, APCs need even heavier protection than the tanks they accompany. An MBT can stand off an objective and destroy it at a distance. Given boots on the ground are required to take and hold an objective, an APC is subject to greater risk than a tank.An APC has to advance through a fire beaten zone and deliver its infantry load on to the objective. Hence the Achzarit, designed as a heavy assault carrier, capable of crossing the rough terrain of the Lava fields west and south of Damascus, whilst survivng enemy fire.

The Achzarit is equipped with a remote weapon station. Unlike the turret of a typical IFV, this has a minimal internal footprint, it doesn't take up space and volume better used for the machine's primary purpose, carrying infantry. Those of you who have been in the Achzarit and an IFV, will know that although the former is cramped, there is much more room than say on a Bradley or Warrior.

Costs. Finance, as ever, is a real problem. If the IDF had more money it would have bought more remote weapon stations and equipped them with 7.62mm MAGS or 12.7mm weapons. I have also seen 40mm grenade launchers fitted to some of the Rafael remote weapon stations. Indeed the Achzarit, as first envisaged, was meant to have three of these stations armed with 7.62 MAGS.

When the IDF considered the Bradley, the first thing that Rafael did with some loaned vehicles, was strip off the turret, replace it with a simple remote weapon station and add extra applique armour. Unfortunately the suspension struggled with the extra weight.

Incidently it is a common mistake to think that the Achzarit was designed for urban warfare. It was not. It was intended for Combined Arms warfare in a heavy threat environment. Similarly the tank based low intensity warfare carriers such as the Nagmashot, Nagmachon and Nakpadon were designed for use in the hills of Lebanon, not the narrow streets of Hebron or Gaza.

cheers
Marsh Edited for clumsy fingers!

More photos and specifications

[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?

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

From what I could see, it looks like they've either fabricated from scratch based on the Mk4 (as per the website seems to indicate), or stripped it back to bare bones before rebuilding. If the latter, then there's absolutely no requirement for them to replace the same armour panels, and in fact with the obvious layout changes, it wouldn't make any sense. My guess is a whole new armour "skin" was produced, possibly thinner and lighter to improve the vehicle's performance - you generally don't need tank armour on an APC.

And Targan, welcome to the 2,000+ post club.

A few years back I got a chance through a old friend to play around a Mk4 Merk and a Namer, and the impression I got was that it is indeed all that. When they built the Namer (And oh, by the way, the Israeli's are going heavy on them - to the point where they are having the Lima Army Tank Plant here in Ohio build 300 of them for them last I read) the requirement was laid on that when all was said and done, that the protection would, at a *minimum* equal or improve on that of the Mk4. Since they don't need a turret, and its weight to go along, it comes out be even more agile than the Merk: And don't be fooled, put a Merk and an Abrams in a average rough field environment, the Abrams will look like a old Mk4 Rhomboid compared to the Mk4 Merkava.

For reference, the photo's in ArmySGT's post are of the Namer, not the Achzarit, and the Achzarit, depending on the model, can mount up to three Remote Weapons Stations. However, as he pointed out, you won't see more than one, perhaps two, ever mounted. On the later production models, there is only the fittings for one, though they can be upgraded at the unit level for a second in a day or so worth of work. The downfall of the T55/62 based Achzarit is the rear ramp: Way too confined, and it slows down debussing. Hence the choice was made to go with the Namer.

ArmySGT's comments (Be it a repost of someone else's or his) is spot on. That was the point made to me when I was over there poking about. The Tanks provide a base of fire, while the infantry pushed up to the point of attack (Usually a village) to debuss inside it. After all, tanks don't live long and fruitful lives in built up areas. They always felt that while IFV's made decent combat vehicles for a scouting role, they made horrid vehicles for attacking positions that had any amount of preparation. After all, even a Bradley or Marder could not stand up to point blank defensive fire from ATGM's and AT Rockets - leaving the infantry inside to cover the last 100 or so yards out in the open. Honestly, I never though about it like this, but when I did, and played it out on the sand tables, it started making perfect sense.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

And Targan, welcome to the 2,000+ post club.

Hah! I hadn't noticed until you mentioned it.

[Panther Al]

As an addendum to my earlier post, I will say this as well about the Namer (And yes, I am biased for various reason towards - though I will admit it makes one helluva big target) the designers actually put some thought into it, when I crawled around in there I always remarked that is was insanely roomy for 8 people - which to bring this thread on topic - would let me say the Namer's passenger capacity to be a true 8. Now, if only someone would post some stats on it for TW2K....

[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.

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

The difference I see though is that the Soviets in the Afghanistan has plenty of BMPs to go around so they could afford lower passenger numbers. They won't have that luxury in T2K and will probably need all the carrying space they can get.

The units in Afghanistan didn't get extra BMPs to compensate for the logistical failures of the design -- they made do as best they could with authorized amounts of the tools at hand. A full strength rifle squad in a BMP going into action simply becomes combat ineffective after a few days on campaign or one or (if lucky) two firefights or so -- without one single guy stopping a bullet or one vehicle brewing up, they just go black on food, water, ammo and just about anything else that matters. If you've got the assets for a follow on unit to exploit forward through their success and resupply to eventually catch up with them, a la Soviet strategy for a conventional war that works. If you're relying on truck convoys following AFV units down what passes for roads in Afghanistan, you're going to need to get authorization for a third shift to work at Kharkov Casket and Coffin Collective Factory #198 or whatever.

(So where did the extra guys from the MTOE go? Convoy security riding in soft skin trucks, out posts and road blocks holding bridges and other key points in a unit's sector, FOB security, etc etc etc. None of that sort of stuff was really built into the Soviet unit organizations that were intended for ultra-high intensity, very short duration conventional combat.)

Having lots of guys and few BMPs to go around, T2K scenario-ish, doesn't make the clown car approach make more sense, in my opinion. Logistics are same, or worse, as those guys in the middle of nowhere Absurdistan, and the absolute last thing you want to have happen is any chunk of your serious hitting power be able to get itself out there swinging in the wind and get wiped out because of supply situation falling out the window.

Probably a common approach to, say, a Motor Rifle Battalion circa 2000 is going to be truck mobile rifle companies, with whatever surviving BMPs are available serving as a fire support asset, not infantry carriers (kind of doing the jobs that tanks, were they still plentiful enough for such things, were doctrinally supposed to do in Motor Rifle units). Each probably carries a 3-4 man dismount section in the rear, but more for local security and to protect the vehicles themselves than to serve as true mechanized infantry. If BMPs and (if super lucky) tanks are going to be the core of a real deliberate attack, I suspect they get loaded up with hitch-hikers from some other infantry unit who ride on the exterior up to the point where bullets are flying, and then the attack ultimately stills ends up being an supported infantry affair more than a real combined arms mech/armor event.

[B.T.]

I served in a unit, that was adressed as "Panzergrenadier MTW". That meant, we were the integral "Jäger" detachemant in a Panzergrenadier Btl. (= mechanized infantry). MTW is the short form for "MannschaftsTransportWagen", which basically means: personal carrier. MTW was at that time the official designation for the M113. Our's were diesel-powered, so they were - more or less - M113A2.

All our M113s were fitted with an altered turred mount. It could be equipped with the MG3 and the MILAN. In an eventual crisis, one of our tasks would have been delaying the foe's advance. Therefore the MILAN. In the passengers compartment two things were different, compared to the original M113:
1. an transportation-racket for the MILAN starter, located directly behind the motor on the right side,
2. a transportation construction(?) in the middle of the compartment, directly underneath the roof-hatch, in which three of the MILAN-rockets were to be stowed one on top of the other.

IIRC our squad consisted of 9 persons:
1. squad leader
2. driver
3. MILAN gunner
4. assistant MILAN gunner
5. MGunner
6. assistant MGunner
7. Sniper 1*
8. Sniper 2*
9. Panzerfaustschütze (The guy with a kind of reloadable LAW. This item is not mentioned in the rules, but I bet, it's on Paul's site!)

In theory, a squad was to have a strength of 10. None of ours had that strength. I'm not certain, if this was coincidence or was planned that way, because of the MILAN-equippement.

When ever we travelled, three of the passengers were ordered to observe the surroundings, standing in the hatch. Fortunately we did not carry MILAN-rockets with us on exercises. If the racket had really been used to transport them, you'd better make a formidable check for "Acrobatics" to avoid any mishapes. The location of the storage was interfering with passanger comfortability.
I'd say: Given the proper equipment, it would have been very difficult to place more people in the "tank". So the strength in those M113 would be driver, commander and 7 dismounts. And it was really cramped.

"Puking-incidents" happened and it was really not funny.

* They were called "Scharfschütze" (= sniper), but it was more a DMR kind of rifle they used (G3 with telescopic sight). In no way they had the abilities of real snipers.

[Panther Al]

Thanks BT, any idea what the Marder was like from what you heard from others?