PDA

View Full Version : BTR Passengers on the Roof


sentinel
2010-12-18, 20:56
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
2010-12-18, 21:03
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
2010-12-18, 21:03
i dont know if the APC can carry the people inside, and this should be taken to the Feed back forums.

Jigsaw
2010-12-18, 21:10
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
2010-12-18, 21:54
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
2010-12-18, 22:33
Jigsaw;1514562']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
2010-12-18, 23:45
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
2010-12-18, 23:47
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
2010-12-18, 23:56
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
2010-12-18, 23:58
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 :p

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
2010-12-19, 00:17
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
2010-12-19, 00:25
DankE_SPB;1514629']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
2010-12-19, 01:18
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
2010-12-19, 02:29
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
2010-12-19, 02:53
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
2010-12-19, 07:27
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.
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/4193/iraqi.jpg

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:
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2659/img7218320.jpg
http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/1859/img7262165.jpg
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/762/img7301042.jpg

BMP-2:
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4176/04b5bd6e86d129xl.jpg
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/4449/04b5b860d0202bxl.jpg

MTLB (with BTR-80 turret, pretty uncommon)
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4268/img7135419.jpg

MTLB-M (30mm turret, used by MEC in game atm on Muttrah)
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2643/img7292706.jpg

BTR-80
http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/8494/vehruskforbtr80inside95.jpg

Now compare them to the Swedish CV90 which has excellent protection for the infantry and offers good comfort too.
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/821/img7277075.jpg

-=shootmeplz=-
2010-12-19, 10:12
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
2010-12-19, 10:46
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
2010-12-19, 11:01
Ninja2dan;1514617']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
2010-12-19, 11:01
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.
http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/315/img7122131.jpg

sentinel
2010-12-19, 11:11
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
2010-12-19, 11:23
@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
2010-12-19, 11:28
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
2010-12-19, 12:05
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:roll:
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.
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3431/87b061b0d16d.jpg

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
2010-12-19, 12:12
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
2010-12-19, 12:21
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 ass 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 ass while you were asleep.

PatrickLA_CA
2010-12-19, 12:39
I think its because the Russian Army wants to make their soldiers death instant instead of painful while being crushed by metal inside.

Wakain
2010-12-19, 12:47
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
2010-12-19, 14:31
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.
http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/315/img7122131.jpg

What Puma are you thinking about?

http://www.da.mod.uk/da-news/fireworks-2007/puma.jpg/image_preview

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

gazzthompson
2010-12-19, 14:45
What Puma are you thinking about?

http://www.da.mod.uk/da-news/fireworks-2007/puma.jpg/image_preview

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

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

dtacs
2010-12-19, 14:51
AKA what ze Germans use on SEagle and Lashkar.

AnimalMother.
2010-12-19, 14:55
wouldn't riding on top increase situational awareness by like, infinity?

dtacs
2010-12-19, 15:37
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
2010-12-19, 15:55
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.
2010-12-19, 16:04
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!!! :lol:

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
2010-12-19, 16:23
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 :p

MadFF
2010-12-19, 16:29
Ninja2dan;1514617']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
2010-12-19, 18:04
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
2010-12-19, 19:16
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 :p

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
2010-12-19, 19:16
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

Shepard
2010-12-19, 20:15
I think the devs just added it to give some prestige to good snipers :D
just pretend were using a 50cal and hitting u inside :P

Nebsif
2010-12-20, 03:54
Meh, an MTLB is safer to its passengers than a BTR-60 ATM, if u cant depict why people ride on top of BTR's dont make em ride on top!

BenHamish
2010-12-20, 09:57
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

Dunno about in PR, but the MT-LB in RL doesn't have a huge amount of armour tbh. I think 10mm was the thickest.

Ninja2dan
2010-12-21, 03:56
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.

It really depends on the situation. In some cases, ordering a dismount under fire can mean death of the vehicle and troops, other times it can mean survival of the vehicle and troops.

For example, if the APC comes under fire from "light" contact, such as a squad of enemy troops, the vehicle commander might order dismount. In such a case, the gunner would immediately return suppressive fire at the enemy while the troops get out and take up formation.

But if the vehicle was under fire from "heavy" contact, such as an MBT, it might be safer for the vehicle to pop smoke and fall back. In cases like that, getting out of there as quickly as possible is important, and a vehicle can't do that if troops are dismounting.

There are many variables for each situation, everything from the type of contact to the terrain. Practice and experience will help the crew decide what reaction to make when the situation comes, but in my experience most cases lead to a dismount order being given.


The problem is that in PR, most players have little combat training or experience, and are lulled into a false sense of safety while riding in an APC. They tend to think that if you're under fire, staying trapped in a tin can will protect you.

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?

I remember there being a post somewhere that listed the quantity of munitions required from each weapon type to disable/destroy each vehicle type, but I don't recall where it was.

Personally, I think all similar rounds should do the same damage regardless of the weapon they are fired from. For example, the M16A2 should cause the same damage per projectile as the M249 SAW or G36 rifle. So in this case, the M430 round and the M433 round should both cause equal damage to a target since they use identical warheads.

If that's not the case in PR, then it's either because the coding team was unaware of the warhead specifics at the time, or they have another reason for giving them different stats. We'd need someone familiar with the coding to answer the question though, that's not my area of expertise.

ComradeHX
2010-12-21, 04:45
They sit on the roof of BTR/BRDM2 because they can.

As in real life, sitting on the roof is dangerous, which is why you should go back IN when going into hot zones and get on top and enjoy the scenery of beautiful PR maps when not shooting at stuff(or shoot at stuff from the top of the vehicle, it simulates shooting while popping out of the hatches).

KillJoy[Fr]
2011-02-09, 00:29
In soviet russia soldiers protect the APC lol

xxkillerxx69
2011-02-09, 01:26
LiveLeak.com - Convoy Ambush (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=88d65a8f9f)
As you can see it is dangerous...
But they put it into pr for a reason obviously russians do it in rl and you can see they do it by the video if being inside would have saved them who knows its to late now...

Riflewizard
2011-02-09, 06:06
It's kinda cooll, but man is it useless. Great way to insure anyone on top dies if you make any decent contact.

seriously, why not add this feature to tanks or something and put infantry inside apcs where they belong.

you know its a bit of a problem when the APC offers less protection than an open top jeep or technical

PatrickLA_CA
2011-02-09, 10:56
Russians do it IRL when moving to their objective from their base, but I'm sure they don't do it in a city or place where they can be ambushed because if an RPG hits the BTR the soldiers outside are dead, but if they were inside, they would survive.

dunem666
2011-02-09, 14:43
good luck fitting passengers inside a russian btr. its a no go!

bloodthirsty_viking
2011-02-09, 15:29
You could have both seats inside and on the vehicle, With the entrance to the inside being the back doors, and the top being on the sides wo you can climb up... That way its players preference, And it holds more then 8 xD

And if they wanted to get on the roof or in they would have to stop and wait for them to get off and to get back in the back, So if you want the view and such, you can ride on top. If you want the security, you can ride in back....

But ya, because of the engine the only good thing about having solders outside is it looks cool xD
Sorry for kinda suggestion on a thread in the feedback section, But thats my opinion on it, It should be possible to sit on them if you want, But if you dont you have the option of being inside.