BTR Passengers on the Roof

[sentinel]

I haven't played PR for a long time, but after missing few patches I came to me senses and installed pr, again. But has happened to the game.. OMG! I am of-course talking about the Russians armored personnel carriers that carries the troops to battle on the top of apc like it's the victory day parade. THAT is pure non-sense! Now the APCs basic function as a people moving device has been ruined.. And for what reason, I don't know, do you? Yes, people tend to fool around IRL, but they don't do it when there is bullets flying around. A lone-wolfing saw-gunner can easily wipe entire squad from the top of the apc and you quested, NO chance for a revive.. So undo the non-sense, please. You know its the right thing to do.

[Adriaan]

The Russians apparantly often ride on top of their apc's for various reasons. When ambushed and hit by an RPG you can get out of the way faster than when inside where you first have to crawl through the back hatch. I'm not sure if that was the (main) reason for it though, perhaps someone else can tell.

[ledo1222]

i dont know if the APC can carry the people inside, and this should be taken to the Feed back forums.

[Jigsaw]

Moved to Vehicle Feedback.


It was actually a decision based on feedback from our Russian MAs. For example in some Russian APCs the fuel tanks are in the rear doors meaning if they get hit the passengers will be trapped.

Also changed thread title to something more descriptive, please consider this in future.

[ZephyrDark]

Yeah I remember reading a DEV post at one point also saying that in the BTR-60 and the 80 as well, have like no mine protection whatsoever; therefore, being slightly safer from a mine going off underneath it by being on top.

The only thing about having people ride on the back, is they effectively become meatshields against RPGs and ATGMs. My self personally taking a TOW to the face and letting my BRDM drive of with near no damage.

[Tim270]

It was actually a decision based on feedback from our Russian MAs. For example in some Russian APCs the fuel tanks are in the rear doors meaning if they get hit the passengers will be trapped.

I thought that was only in BMP1's?

I see why it was put in but in practice it just makes the BTR's pretty useless for moving infantry anywhere near the enemy. If you could have more than 8 guys in a vehicle and some functionality of surviving if you are sitting on the outside when hitting a mine, then great but as it is now it puts the vehicle at a real disadvantage imo.

[Jigsaw]

I thought that was only in BMP1's?

Hence why I said some Russian APCs as I'm unsure of which one it was specifically therefore didn't specify

Just because the BMP-1 may have been the only one designed like that doesn't mean they don't sit on the top of other APCs anyway.

[ShockUnitBlack]

Yeah, I know that doctrine, makes good sense. That said, it is a Russian doctrine, not a MEC one, so I don't know if it's really applicable to the MEC BTR-60...

[Ninja2dan]

I see why it was put in but in practice it just makes the BTR's pretty useless for moving infantry anywhere near the enemy. If you could have more than 8 guys in a vehicle and some functionality of surviving if you are sitting on the outside when hitting a mine, then great but as it is now it puts the vehicle at a real disadvantage imo.

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.

[Tim270]

Jigsaw;1514612']Hence why I said some Russian APCs as I'm unsure of which one it was specifically therefore didn't specify

Was a open-ended question as I am not sure if that is the right one myself

Just because the BMP-1 may have been the only one designed like that doesn't mean they don't sit on the top of other APCs anyway.

While they may sit on top in real life for various reasons, In my opinion it is not really worth it in PR as the engine cannot simulate why they are sitting on the roof in the first place. The advantage of sitting in real life being they are less exposed to mine/IED blasts and can dismount quicker. Neither of those can be portrayed in PR effectively.

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.

I fully take the point. However I have had instances when I want the guys inside when we are moving through a area where we are likely to take small arms fire/trying to disengage from a contact but they are just stuck on the roof without the option of utilizing the light armour protection at all.

[DankE_SPB]

I thought that was only in BMP1's?

Its a myth anyway. Same as stories about those fuel tanks being used 1st or being filled with sand to increase protection Not to mention that diesel fuel tanks can act as good protection against HEAT charges.

[Jigsaw]

Its a myth anyway. Same as stories about those fuel tanks being used 1st or being filled with sand to increase protection Not to mention that diesel fuel tanks can act as good protection against HEAT charges.

Aw, that makes me a little sad

[lukeyu2005]

Are you talking about the BTR 80 or the BDRM?. Because people riding on the roof of the BTR is a actual technique as the BTR has special firing ports and a hatch on the roof to enable firing from it.

As an guy with an HAT kit on the roof of an BTR would be really useful

[sentinel]

Are you talking about the BTR 80 or the BDRM?. Because people riding on the roof of the BTR is a actual technique as the BTR has special firing ports and a hatch on the roof to enable firing from it.

As an guy with an HAT kit on the roof of an BTR would be really useful

Yes, but to use firing ports you would have sit inside the vehicle.. Not to sit on the roof fully exposed. If soldiers sit on the roof because mines they should also sit on top of all other apcs as well. When it comes to common sense I don't think that the Russian doctrine is that much different from others. Why would they put seat, air-conditioning and firing ports in there, if they would still sit on the roof.

And about tactics.. There is always risk of being ambushed no matter how far you are from actual combat. When engaged with small arms, it might be more tactical to speed up and drive away from fire, before dismounting the vehicle. Or just ask yourself, would you sit on the roof just to look cool?

[Biscuits]

Yes, but to use firing ports you would have sit inside the vehicle.. Not to sit on the roof fully exposed. If soldiers sit on the roof because mines they should also sit on top of all other apcs as well. When it comes to common sense I don't think that the Russian doctrine is that much different from others. Why would they put seat, air-conditioning and firing ports in there, if they would still sit on the roof.

And about tactics.. There is always risk of being ambushed no matter how far you are from actual combat. When engaged with small arms, it might be more tactical to speed up and drive away from fire, before dismounting the vehicle. Or just ask yourself, would you sit on the roof just to look cool?

Agreed.

[dtacs]

Yes, but to use firing ports you would have sit inside the vehicle.. Not to sit on the roof fully exposed. If soldiers sit on the roof because mines they should also sit on top of all other apcs as well. When it comes to common sense I don't think that the Russian doctrine is that much different from others. Why would they put seat, air-conditioning and firing ports in there, if they would still sit on the roof.

I raised this question during the development of the BMP's and got the answer that the dev's would put it up to the MA's discretion.

Inside a BMP-1, it is considerably cramped. The rear seats were designed to hold 4 each of fully equipped Soviet infantryman ready to invade mainland Europe, which is why the firing ports were pointed forwards as it was expected to be a linear fight. Nowadays - as we saw with the Russians in South Ossetia - its more safe to actually ride on top so incase of a fight they can dismount quickly. Also if an RPG were to hit the troop compartment, the guys in the back would be pretty well screwed. as they're very bunched up. In Grozny however, there are videos on Youtube from soldiers that had whole squads inside the BTR's when they were moving through the cities as they'd just get shot if they were outside moving with it.

Personally I'd like to see - at least on the BMP-1 - one or two of the hatches opened up so a guy can stand up. This is what the Iraqi Army is currrently doing with their mechanized patrols, having a few dismounts inside the vehicle but having a couple more poking out the hatches.


Awhile ago I made a suggestion that the firing ports within the BTR-80 be usable as the troops were riding on the inside and that they are configured for firing with AK74's, however it didn't really follow through, and in hindsight it would be considerably unbalanced as it has alot of firing ports and technically the rifles should have 0 deviation which would make it hell for anyone trying to engage the BTR with an RPG or whatnot.

I guess we'll see if the BMP-1/2's firing ports are enabled, it would make sense to see at least 1 per side as the Chinese WZ551 had them added back in during 0.95 (2 sides, one rear). And for balance purposes, they could be a tad innacurate as the ports have small firing angles and you are shoulder to shoulder with 3 other dudes.

And to gauge the size of the troop compartment, here are some interior pictures of Soviet vehicles.
BMP-1:




BMP-2:



MTLB (with BTR-80 turret, pretty uncommon)


MTLB-M (30mm turret, used by MEC in game atm on Muttrah)


BTR-80


Now compare them to the Swedish CV90 which has excellent protection for the infantry and offers good comfort too.

[-=shootmeplz=-]

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.

[DankE_SPB]

Now compare them to the Swedish CV90 which has excellent protection for the infantry and offers good comfort too.

Compare it to Warrior or Puma Impression of much more space comes from sits facing each other, but in the end you have around as much space as in BMP, iirc it takes under ~8 second for dismount to leave the BMP2 on the move.

[Herbiie]

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.

But you can still take fire at any point, especially in an insurgency where guys on the roof are a perfect target for snipers. You can take small arms fire without dismounting.

[dtacs]

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.