Project Reality Forums

Since the new AFVs and IFVs will be to proper scale it would be a nice feature to be able to actualy climb into the back of the IFV's. The rear hatch could be lowered by the driver, and then troops could climb in. To add to this, it has been stated that they fixed the problem that would cause people to glitch around when they jumped in or in to a vehicle without actualy assuming a position in it. With that, it should be very possible for this too work. On the M2, and any other IFV with such a feature, firing ports featuring the modified M16 or apropriate weapon could be included as positions in the rear troop compartment.

i know for a fact at least in the LAV there are firing ports

Ugly Duck wrote:Since the new AFVs and IFVs will be to proper scale it would be a nice feature to be able to actualy climb into the back of the IFV's. The rear hatch could be lowered by the driver, and then troops could climb in. To add to this, it has been stated that they fixed the problem that would cause people to glitch around when they jumped in or in to a vehicle without actualy assuming a position in it. With that, it should be very possible for this too work. On the M2, and any other IFV with such a feature, firing ports featuring the modified M16 or apropriate weapon could be included as positions in the rear troop compartment.

We would like to incorporate some of these features on our APCs and IFVs. However, in the case of the M2 Bradley, we would only be able to incorporate one of them. The reason is because on the M2A2 and afterwards, only two firing ports remain, and both of them are on the ramp.

I see, well then forget the fireports. I'd much rather be able to cram a hell of a lot of people in the back rather than only 4.

I am not to sure about now but as far back a ww2 people always rode on the top of tanks to avoid things like manes and haveing to walk to some place, maby you could find a way around the way that people get killed for being ontop of a moving veical, may be it could be an extra spot on the tank, only on the out side

that can be done, the people sitting on top idea, FH had it for some tanks, youd see 2-4 guys riding on the back of them, and of course they are able to be killed, but i dont think they could shoot...

[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker]We would like to incorporate some of these features on our APCs and IFVs. However, in the case of the M2 Bradley, we would only be able to incorporate one of them. The reason is because on the M2A2 and afterwards, only two firing ports remain, and both of them are on the ramp.

Can I ask, why are LAV's actually being included when you can just have
-IFV
-AA vehicle
-MBT
?

So, say for the USMC, you could have the
-M2A3 Bradley as the standard IFV for the force with 25mm bushmaster, AVM etc, with room for Driver/Main gunner, Commander, Machine gunner + x amount of troop space in the back.

-The Avenger (HMMWV) pedestal mounted Stinger system. Suits the AA role much more than the M6 Linebacker.

-Obvious, M1A2 Abrams.

LAV's seem kinda... pointless to me, especially where the force has a much more suitable IFV available, (Bradley >LAV/Stryker) the only difference is, IFV's are not always amphibious, and countries like China which use the WZ-551 and don't really have a suitable IFV other than the out-dated BMP-1 mod.

In contrast to the above.

MEC may use

-BMP-3 with 100mm cannon, 30mm cannon + commander, machine gunner hatches/ports and x amount of troop space.

-Tunguska, the scourge of the aircraft

-T-90UM.

My 2 cence.

Longfire wrote:Can I ask, why are LAV's actually being included when you can just have
-IFV
-AA vehicle
-MBT
?

So, say for the USMC, you could have the
-M2A3 Bradley as the standard IFV for the force with 25mm bushmaster, AVM etc, with room for Driver/Main gunner, Commander, Machine gunner + x amount of troop space in the back.

-The Avenger (HMMWV) pedestal mounted Stinger system. Suits the AA role much more than the M6 Linebacker.

-Obvious, M1A2 Abrams.

LAV's seem kinda... pointless to me, especially where the force has a much more suitable IFV available, (Bradley >LAV/Stryker) the only difference is, IFV's are not always amphibious, and countries like China which use the WZ-551 and don't really have a suitable IFV other than the out-dated BMP-1 mod..

Well, for one, the US Marine Corps doesn't operate the Bradley in any variation. The LAVs operated by the USMC are not the same as the LAV III / Stryker family of vehicles, they're older. Also, the LAV-25 is not an IFV, it is used as a reconnaissance vehicle by the Marines; it cannot and does not carry a full rifle squad, just a small team of 3-4 dismount scouts (0311 Riflemen and any 0313 LAV Crewmen who can't get a seat in front).

As for Linebacker, the Army needed a system that could be fielded alongside the heavy armor. They and the Marines still use the Avenger, it just depends on the type of unit. The Marines use the LAV-AD, which I think the Army should put the turret of on the Bradley Linebacker; it carries more ready Stinger rounds and has a gatling cannon with a much higher rate of fire than the Bushmaster, but fires the same family of ammunition.

So, when you get inside of the thing, it won't instantly kill you? Thats what happens to me when i try to stay on top of a tank or apc or jeep.

I suppose it is moddabley (word?) possible to fix. Would rather have 6 guys cramed in the back crouched than 4 guys in positions in the back.

all i say is implement them as they would be in the real world

[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker]As for Linebacker, the Army needed a system that could be fielded alongside the heavy armor. They and the Marines still use the Avenger, it just depends on the type of unit. The Marines use the LAV-AD, which I think the Army should put the turret of on the Bradley Linebacker; it carries more ready Stinger rounds and has a gatling cannon with a much higher rate of fire than the Bushmaster, but fires the same family of ammunition.

Regardless of what the Army does with the Linebacker turret. It's a much better replacement for the regular M2's carrying and group of MANPAD's in the back that needed to dismount to fire.

i forget which mod it was in, but it was in BFV, there were 2 seats on the back of the tank, it was great because there werent enough vehicles to go around.

i always wondered why you couldent jump on the tanks etc and hitch a ride! why not... i dont even mean strpped in i mean if you hit a bump then u might fall of but you can stil get on and try to stay on without it auto killing you.

TerribleOne wrote:i always wondered why you couldent jump on the tanks etc and hitch a ride! why not... i dont even mean strpped in i mean if you hit a bump then u might fall of but you can stil get on and try to stay on without it auto killing you.

Sorry, but all this talk of sitting on a moving tank just isn't very Realistic... maybe they do it in 3rd-world nations with rag-tag "Armies"... but no modern professional Army is doing anything of the sort. Someone might be able to cite a few odd instances where it has happened, but as far as being a typical practice - it's far from S.O.P. (standard operating procedure.) In the US Army it's standard to have 3 points of contact (2 feet & one hand -or- your *** & 2 feet etc.) on a parked vehicle with the engine off and the entire crew a mile away! Besides, anyone who's ever ridden cross-country in a military vehicle in combat-like conditions will tell you it would be really hard to keep from falling off.

it might not happen a lot but in real life the possibility is still there. i, for one, can imagine that if you were under fire and the everyone, including tanks, was retreating you'd rather hitch a ride then be left behind without tank support.

like in black hawk down when they have the option to go on top or run behind, we all know the movie shows them run behind then well the convoy goes to fast and all hell breaks loose

actually they didnt really have an option, there was a mixup and those dozen or so troops ended up running the 'mogadishu mile' by total mistake.

as for riding on top of tanks infantry normally did it just to get around, in combat situations theyd hop off, everyones seen this kind of thing in WWII movies.

Also in vietnam some troops did ride on top of APCs because being out there was a better alternative than being inside if the vehicle was hit by a mine or other explosive, again they wouldnt be doing this in the middle of battle, if shots were fired theyd dismount and find cover lower to the ground.

As for SOP, youre probably right, it doesnt happen alot. but there are stories, one i like i saw on the military channel where a group of 4 specops troops in Afghanistan had to get to the top of a steep hill that would take them hours to climb up and thus they would lose the terrorists they were following. however a US marine corps cobra was in the area and actually landed, opened these maitenance doors on the side of the chopper and the pilot of the Cobra bungied the troops to the side, then flew them to the top of the hill, where they were able to continue their chase and eventually catch their guys.
-again not SOP, but pretty crafty.

some good improvising there...