BTR Passengers on the Roof

[sentinel]

i remember a video from Chechen rebels where a russian BTR 80 with about 8 troops on top gets hit a huge ied. The blast was enormous and the soldiers were flying around like rag dolls, literally raining down. pretty sad video, but shows soldiers apc riding.

I think I have seen that too and it's a perfect example why not to ride on top. Just to considering the speed that an apc can go, a regular bender-fender would cost the lives of the squad riding on top. In Finland soldiers riding apcs are not even allowed to even peak outside from the hatches during movement, this because all top-heavy apcs like strikers and lav-25 have a tendency to roll over, guess what would happen if people would ride on top.

I agreed with the BMP, soldiers should be standing in the hatches and should have the ability to duck inside. That is what those hatches are for. Same with BMP-3 that has two big hatches to accommodate soldiers.

Also have you notice while playing muttrah that AAVs tend to use it's 40mm grenade laucher to take out apcs in seconds.. That is kinda weird isn't, since I have never heard about 40mm Armor Piercing grenades that destroy apcs with just few grenades. This would mean that apcs can be destroyed with M203s and hand grenades. But that is whole another thing...

[WilsonPL]

@sentinel

M203 uses 40 x 46 mm shell, while MK19 uses 40 x 53 mm.

Wiki:
The M203 ammunition develops a lower chamber pressure, and resultant lower muzzle velocity and range, compared to ammunition loaded for the Mk-19.

It can also punch through two inches ( 5 cm) of rolled homogeneous armor with a direct hit (0 Degree Obliquity), which means it can penetrate most infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers.

[dtacs]

The rounds in the Mk19 are dual purpose IIRC, however it takes a stupid amount of them to destroy an MTLB yet only about 20 to kill a BTR.

i remember a video from Chechen rebels where a russian BTR 80 with about 8 troops on top gets hit a huge ied. The blast was enormous and the soldiers were flying around like rag dolls, literally raining down. pretty sad video, but shows soldiers apc riding.

I have the link however some may consider it graphic so I won't post it here. The thread in a conventional situation is much higher however in an Insurgency such as Chechnya getting hit by an IED like while inside would surely mean the deaths of all the passengers and crew, while riding on top they have a very small chance of surviving that.

[DankE_SPB]

I've never seen the interior of a Warrior or Puma but they both looked pretty small, the Puma looked like the CV90 interior anyway.
And this has way more room than the BMP.

Yeah, way more

Impression of much more space comes from sits facing each other

Imagine a line in the middle and mirror the 2 parts, this will give you about same picture as in BMP.


Unfortunately i cant post a pic with full warrior for you, but believe me, its not better.
Difference here is that instead of x cm to a wall with firing port you have 2x cm till the face in front of you, but that space doesn't really matter.
After BMP-1 MT-LB with puma-like seats placement look much bigger inside(except in height), but that is not that different actually.

The thread in a conventional situation is much higher however in an Insurgency such as Chechnya getting hit by an IED like while inside would surely mean the deaths of all the passengers and crew, while riding on top they have a very small chance of surviving that.

This all depends on kind of IED and where it will blow up, but saying "surely mean death of all inside" is way too far. There were cases of BTR rtb'ing after hitting TM-62 mine, driving several km without one wheel, with zero casualties inside and 2-4 dead outside.
Or something like MON-50 or a pocket filled with metal nails, balls and TNT, tied to a tree on a road side - blows away everybody outside and only scratch the paint on hull.

Most of the time people ride on top not because of IEDs or overpressure from shaped charges at all but because there is no space inside, they dont want to sit in there(too hot ie), habit, mountain roads(have a chance to jump out if vehicle slips), loose discipline and so on, but when small arms fire and fragmentation IEDs prevail people tend to hide inside regardless of above, survive multiple RPG hits and realise that overpressure from HEAT jet is a myth.

[Jaymz]

The rounds in the Mk19 are dual purpose IIRC, however it takes a stupid amount of them to destroy an MTLB yet only about 20 to kill a BTR.

Mk19 vs BTR-80 = 14 rounds until completely destroyed

Mk19 vs BTR-60 = 12 rounds until completely destroyed

Mk19 vs MTLB = 8 rounds until completely destroyed

The problem you're experiencing is that the 40mm HEDP rounds require direct hits to deal damage to armoured vehicles as, just like rl, it's the only case where armour penetration occurs. The explosion damage won't affect armoured vehicles at all.

[Ninja2dan]

Also have you notice while playing muttrah that AAVs tend to use it's 40mm grenade laucher to take out apcs in seconds.. That is kinda weird isn't, since I have never heard about 40mm Armor Piercing grenades that destroy apcs with just few grenades. This would mean that apcs can be destroyed with M203s and hand grenades. But that is whole another thing...

The M430 and M433 are both HEDP rounds, with the same warhead assembly. The difference is that the M430 is a 40x53mm HVLR and the M433 is a 40x46mm LVLR. So in theory, the M203 will have similar capabilities of the Mk 19 in regards to the warhead function.

The HEDP rounds are designed with a small shaped-charge that forms a jet at the point of contact, capable of punching a hole into the vehicle. The warhead also has a fragmentation layer that is capable of causing casualties out to 5m, similar to a hand grenade.

It can also punch through two inches ( 5 cm) of rolled homogeneous armor with a direct hit (0 Degree Obliquity), which means it can penetrate most infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers.

The catch is that 2 inches is based on a zero-degree impact. And in life, that rarely happens. You're probably looking more like 30 degrees impact, which will produce much less penetration.

So even though chances of having a full penetration of an APC are unlikely, it's still going to be quite effective against them. There is chance of damaging or destroying external components. It's going to scare the shit out of the crew, who might panic or at least divert from their previous activity. This is going to reduce the combat effectiveness of the vehicle, and in many cases cause it to retreat. So even without a catastrophic hit, a Mk 19 can still disable an APC or cause it to fall back which in the end still serves the same purpose.

Another reason why HEDP rounds would be very effective against an APC is because the fragmentation has a chance of hitting dismounts. So even if the jet-stream is unable to penetrate or damage the APC, there is still chance of the fragments injuring a grunt, thereby taking one weapon out of action.



And believe it or not, but riding on top of an APC might be a little more "comfortable" for the troops in some cases. When traveling over rough terrain, I personally might be a bit nervous about riding on top without being strapped down for fear of being thrown off (has happened before). But not all vehicles have seatbelts inside, or at least not everyone uses them even when they are available. And anyone else here that's been inside of an armored vehicle hauling *** over dirt roads, ditches, logs, etc knows what that feels like. After a couple hours of that you might end up looking like Mike Tyson stomped your *** while you were asleep.

[PatrickLA_CA]

I think its because the Russian Army wants to make their soldiers death instant instead of painful while being crushed by metal inside.

[Wakain]

lol, however it seem pretty common for russian soldiers to ride on top of APC's, just google the georgian-russian war from a couple of years back and you'll see a lot of photo's in which this happens.

driving into battle this way is of course sheer madness.

[Herbiie]

I've never seen the interior of a Warrior or Puma but they both looked pretty small, the Puma looked like the CV90 interior anyway.

And this has way more room than the BMP.

What Puma are you thinking about?



Is the only Puma I know of, and it can carry a bit under 20 guys

[gazzthompson]

What Puma are you thinking about?



Is the only Puma I know of, and it can carry a bit under 20 guys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puma_(IFV)

[dtacs]

AKA what ze Germans use on SEagle and Lashkar.

[AnimalMother.]

wouldn't riding on top increase situational awareness by like, infinity?

[dtacs]

wouldn't riding on top increase situational awareness by like, infinity?

In PR - significantly, but gives enemies a reason to open up on the APC with small arms. I noticed it happening alot with the BTR-80 on SEagle where you ride on top.

[ShockUnitBlack]

Well, I think no matter how you look at it, there's no right answer. Personally, I favour the inside-the-vehicle plan thing as every other vehicle bar the BRDM-2 has its personnel inside.

On a related note - does the BMP-1/2 model have a modelled interior?

[AnimalMother.]

gives enemies a reason to open up on the APC with small arms.

then let them shoot, for it'll give away there position. and then destroy them with superior Russian firepower!!!

i suppose that's the balance you get for the increased situational awareness, a certain vunerability. though equally you can have protection from the APC then dismount and get wasted without ever knowing from where it came. swings and roundabouts

[Tim270]

i suppose that's the balance you get for the increased situational awareness, a certain vunerability. though equally you can have protection from the APC then dismount and get wasted without ever knowing from where it came. swings and roundabouts

The riders get a pretty limited FOV when sitting on the roof and by the time they spot someone they will most likely dead. Also as Vehicles go in PR it is quite unlikely and hard to maintain moving a APC at a slow enough rate to be mobile and not kill/hurt the guys whenever they jump off.

I do not see any advantage to it

[MadFF]

Here's the point though: Any time an armored vehicle is moving about in an area where enemy contact is expected or likely, the infantry are NOT mounted. Infantry soldiers will dismount prior to entering a hot zone, and will move in formation with the vehicle, providing mutual fire support for the vehicle while it also protects them. It's a war zone, not downtown Compton, so people need to use proper doctrine and tactics instead of attempting drive-by's.

If the infantry is dismounted, they create more targets for the enemy to engage. And in most circumstances, a squad of dismounts is much more a threat than their APC. That APC probably only has a HMG or light cannon, maybe ATGM's for backup. But that squad of dismounts likely has a half-dozen small arms, several AT weapons, grenades, etc.

If you are stupid enough to ride straight into combat either inside of or on top of an APC, you all deserve to die. And if you are taken by surprise, the first thing that should be done is the APC halts to allow the troops to dismount, while either laying suppressive fire with their weapon systems or popping smoke to screen the troops.

Thank you!! I don't know how many times my squad leader has basically yelled at us (me) to stay in the vehicle, or not get out. The second I hear gunfire, I want OUT of the vehicle! I hope more people read this.

[sentinel]

In maps like muttrah docks there are two kinds of apc for mec.. BTR and MT-LBs, when a squadleaders asks for a apc transport to them they don't want to be transported by the BTR. So its main function is not to transport people, its to drive around gunning, like the .50 jeeps that were removed years ago. Like the devs said MT-LB however can take only 8 rounds from a baseraping AAV and the 30mm MT-LB is the prime asset of the mec that rarely does any transporting.

I could understand the idea of moving six guys inside and six guys on the outside if the maps were huge like in Arma, but they are not. They are infact mostly tiny and enemy of resorts to wait outside the main. Mines instantly kill all apcs and ifvs so that cannot be the reason. Exiting speed is the same no matter what. We can make all kinds of real life facts that could make riding a viable option, but none of them can be implemented to PR. Only reason that I can think of why the devs put the mec and ruskies on the top of the apc is that they could do it..

[amazing_retard]

The riders get a pretty limited FOV when sitting on the roof and by the time they spot someone they will most likely dead. Also as Vehicles go in PR it is quite unlikely and hard to maintain moving a APC at a slow enough rate to be mobile and not kill/hurt the guys whenever they jump off.

I do not see any advantage to it

People have to realize that PR and RL are two different things. In PR every AT/mine hit will kill all opfor and blufor vehicles alike. It doesn't make sense that the Russians/MEC get penalized by having it's inf exposed :/ I say return the BTRs to the way they were, but keep the BRDM the way it is.

[lucky.BOY]

It is commonly utilized by russians on BTRs in conventional warfare, and even in insurgency scenarios, as was stated above in this thread. And I have no problem with russians riding of top of BTRs.

One question stays unanwsered, however: Why do MEC use the same, i.e. Russian, doctrine?
One reason might be MEC is ficitonal, hence Devs can pretty much make up if they ride on top of their apcs or not. The other is that they still use the same vehicle as russians, with all its fllaws.

But are there references of ANY Arabian army using its BTRs the way MEC do ingame?


Slightly offtopic, if M203 uses the same warhead as Mk.19 do, does it mean that (ingame) 8 rounds from M203 do destroy a MT-LB?

-lucky