is there anyone here on this list, that really believes, rules or no
rules, that if an APC or IFV sucks up a serious hit (serious-not
catastropic), that the grunts in the back ARE NOT GONNA KNOW ABOUT
IT???????????????????
as i recall it, there is this IMPACT, and NOISE, a noise soo loud some
survivors say they never heard it, followed by everything inside the vehicle
that is movable flying through the air....
then, in the ear-crushing silence, there is the smell of explosives (and
if you are unlucky!) fire and smoke boiling into the comparment....
everyman heads for the nearest exit, and LEAVES, with the unijured dragging
the injured out of the vehicle.
none of this "After you, ALPHONSE, my good fellow! But of course, my dear
GASTOGNE!"
of course if it is a catastrophic, or a nasty burn through with hot gases and
molten metal spraying into the compartment, you are dead, dead, dead and not
going anywhere....
if an APC/IFV is hit by large bore MG, there was stunning noise, and
sometimes, flying paint off the interior hull as BULGES FORMED on the inside,
a result of bullets hitting the outside hull and sticking into it!
if you are close enough, the bullets slice right through the hull and ricichet
around inside the comparment making a mess out of the occupants (crew and
squaddies), possibly starting fires and causing explosions.
in any of the above circumstances, i do believe the crew and squaddies
would know their APC/IFV was hit.
just my thoughts, based on limited experience with being blown up.
DAWGIE
> At 11:44 AM -0500 7/16/02, DAWGFACE47@webtv.net wrote:
If it's a major impact and has penetrated the crew compartment, I don't see
the crew let alone the passengers staying inside. If it was a glancing hit,
then the crew is going to stay and fight no?
> as i recall it, there is this IMPACT, and NOISE, a noise soo loud
My ferret would be an example. Any shot inside the vehicle and I'm out. I have
1 Military radio between me and the thick sheet metal gas tank. Between the
engine and me and the radio is that gas tank. No firewall or nothing. I'm
outta there fast if there's been rounds inside and the engine has been hit
hard. "FIRE IN THE VEHICLE!" will get me out too!
Though by the same token, I have had minor problems and fire in it without
panicing. Having a 24vold battery cable intermittently touch a propshaft and
wear through thus catching the insulation on fire was a bit worrysome but not
a huge deal.
> everyman heads for the nearest exit, and LEAVES, with the unijured
Granted lots of screaming and yelling I'm sure. However, in the case of tanks
there are more than a few accounts of the commander's headless body dropping
back down inside tanks that were struck with glancing shots from RPGs and the
crew continued to fight their vehicle with bits of the Sgt dripping around
inside the vehicle.
> of course if it is a catastrophic, or a nasty burn through with hot
Depends on the vehicle and the shot. There are enough accounts of AP rounds
going through a vehicle and shooting away parts of
things/people inside and the vehicle crew sticking around and then
driving it back to cover.
> if an APC/IFV is hit by large bore MG, there was stunning noise, and
I don't think them knowing that they were hit is at question. Their response
is.
The question I guess goes down to training and context. An ACAV unit that is
ambushed has to put as much fire on the ambush as possible to survive (just
like infantry in an ambush). Suppressing the enemy is the first priority. If
the crew can continue firing and putting Beehive and MG fire into the ambush
then they'll be better off. If they bail out because the commander and his
cupola was shot away they'll be less than useless. d
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:44:44 -0500 (CDT), DAWGFACE47@webtv.net wrote:
> is there anyone here on this list, that really believes, rules or no
I don't think anyone was arguing they wouldn't know that the vehicle was hit,
just whether or not they had to bail out of the vehicle. You may not know if
the crew of the vehicle bailed (depending on the layout of the vehicle, noise,
and smoke) but I think we were all pretty much in agreement that everyone knew
the vehicle was hit.
My own house rules make bailing out the default action, with a confidence test
required to stay in the vehicle. Sometimes you may want to stay in the
vehicle. Perhaps the vehicle is a GEV skimming across some sort of quicksand
lake. The squaddies may have a chance of getting sucked under/drowned if
they bailed. In this case, staying in the vehicle may be a better bet.
> required to stay in the vehicle. Sometimes you may want to stay in the
Assuming they know they were over water when they were hit....
BY a glancing hit, i assume you mean a non penetrating armor hit, or a hit
that does not mean the vehicle is immobilized or its fighting ability
impaired?
by my definition, a glancing hit, one that just does exterior armor damage,
blows open tool boxes, crew gear, blowns off radio antennae, ruins the paint,
ruins the paint, and generally makes for brown pants all around but nothing
else is not a serious hit.
now granted the other crew members MIGHT continue to figiht the vehicle with
what is left of the TC laying on the floor and sprayed about the compartment,
but there is also a chance the crew MIGHT panic and abandon the vehicle.
the troops riding in the troop compartment, well, they too would be
aware of the mess that used to be the TC if the crew and troop
compartments are not divided by a bulkhead.
in this instance the squaddies would be able to determine WTFO wih their own
eyes and know the vehicle was HIT but still able to move and fight too....
but if the crew paniced and left, the squaddies would be right behind them!
now if the troop compartment is separated from the crew compartment, and the
squaddies cannot see or talk with the crew, they would feel the impact and
etc. if the vehicle does not move or fire almost immediately after the hit,
the squaddies just might decide it was time to leave without being told to do
so. especially at the first sign of smoke or fire in the troop compartment!
there are many examples of this situation going either way, since WW II.
unless mis read a message, i got the impression that folks thought the
squadies were just meat being hauled around in the back and did not worry
about obvious vehicle hits that could be bad news...
this i know is not true- squaddies are very aware of the things that
kill MBTs, IFVs. APCs, and etc.
DAWGIE
> At 5:54 PM -0500 7/16/02, DAWGFACE47@webtv.net wrote:
There have been plenty of glancing hits that don't penetrate but carry away
parts of the exterior including (part of) the crewman that had his head and
torso outside the vehicle when it was struck. Jungle Dragoon gives a good
account of this I think. As do a number of accounts of Tank actions in WWII
Western Europe.
> now granted the other crew members MIGHT continue to figiht the
Yep. Good old Confidence check.
> the troops riding in the troop compartment, well, they too would be
I don't think there are many APCs that do this. None that I know of at least.
> in this instance the squaddies would be able to determine WTFO wih
No kidding. No argument there at all.
> now if the troop compartment is separated from the crew compartment,
Hopefully the track doesn't start backing up just as they've started to
debuss. That or neutral steer. Tracks that move when infantry are close are
bad for those infantry. I can see yellows and greens doing this, but blues and
up should know better. Its my biggest worry with
re-enacting. Some german or some allied re-enactor thinking getting
up close to an AFV is a good idea, the driver not knowing he's there an
*squish*. When a wheeled vehicle can reverse as fast as it goes forwards it
can be unpredictable. Oh and with three road wheels, a Bren carrier can really
rock back and forth when the driver stabs the brakes, turns the wheel then
guns the gas to turn fast.
> unless mis read a message, i got the impression that folks thought
Until the get out they may as well be meat. If they debuss at the wrong time
they can also be meat.
> this i know is not true- squaddies are very aware of the things that
Likely they'll want to get out, but there should be some moderation of why
they want to leave.
MBTs, IFVs, APCs, LAVs, SP guns, VTRs and etc are dangerous beasts to be
around, no argument from me about that. just a second or so of carelessness or
thoughtlessness, on the part of crew, passengers, or folks in the vicinity
could end in death or serious injury.
other thoughts i have are in line with DON's. if the grunts and crew are part
of the same squad, i would go with one check. if the crew are just "taxi
drivers" and the troops just "rides", i think that two checks might be in
order.
if, IF, the crew abandons the vehicle, for wotever reason, the squaddies
SHOULD be right behind them! this should be an automatic event unless the
squaddies are all KIA in back.
and for sure, the training, experience, morale, and circumstances would be
very important factors when a vehicle sustains a serious hit, especially one
that disables but does not destroy the vehicle or does
not render the crew/passengers all KIA/WIA.
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >the troops riding in the troop compartment, well,
Ummm. . . M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle. There's a
door between the crew in the turret and the dismounts in the troop
compartment.
Been there, done that.
> Hopefully the track doesn't start backing up just as
Umm... have any of you guys ever gotten out of a goddamn track??
The DRIVER is the one that lowers the ramp. You cannot rapidly debus the
vehicle without the driver's knowledge. It's that way for a REASON, that being
the one you cited. You can go out the troop door, but that's not fast. You can
also jump out the troop
hatch on the top of an M-113, but that's a bit risky
under the best of circumstances. I wouldn't do it unless the track was
stopped.
> re-enacting. Some german or some allied re-enactor
Crap. A smart and fast troop can get as close as he wants and it's pretty
safe.
> --- DAWGFACE47@webtv.net wrote:
Possible, but most circumstances where the TC is going to get splattered are
situations where it's freakin suicidal to get out of the damn tank. Machinegun
bullets like hail on the hull do NOT encourage DATs to unass. It encourages
them to get the hell out of Dodge, but if tankers won't get out of their tanks
to eat chow, sleep, eliminate body waste (yes, I've seen many tankers
defecating off their main gun) or ANY OTHER purpose whatsoever for an entire
field problem, then they are NOT going to get out when someone is shooting at
them.
Now IFVs, that might be different, but you have to figure that the driver
can't see the TC, and the only rapid way out of the vehicle for the gunner
involves climbing over the dead body of the TC and crawling out the hatch that
the TC was standing in when he was killed.
Not likely. Far more likely to continue to fight the
vehicle and withdraw to a covered/concealed position.
Or just panicking and telling the driver to "Drive that way!", That Way being
whichever way does NOT have Bad Guys shooting from them.
> but if the crew paniced and left, the squaddies
Oh, yeah. You better believe. I don't like riding in a moving coffin.
Stationary coffins have nothing to recommend them.
> without being told to do so. especially at the
Considering the emphasis placed on vehicle fire drills
in training, any smoke/fire will have me out of the
vehicle regardless of what's going on.
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Though by the same token, I have had minor problems
Our doctrine is pull the fire extinguishers and unass the vehicles RIGHT NOW.
> Granted lots of screaming and yelling I'm sure.
In those circumstances it's safer in the tank than out.
However, Tank!= APC.
> The DRIVER is the one that lowers the ramp. You
Great, anyone know about non-U.S. equipment? Specfically the doors on
BMP's, Marder's, Spartan's, and AMX 10P's?
[quoted original message omitted]
IIRC the BMP-1/2 had only doors while the BMP-3 finally had a ramp. I
think that 1st generation Marders and AMX10s had only doors also. Lessons
learned in '73 I think mad the changes.
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 3:29 PM -0700 7/17/02, John Atkinson wrote:
> Ummm. . . M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle. There's a
Hmm. I've seen some of the diagrams I didn't realize there was such a door. I
know there's one to get to the magazine for the 25mm ready ammo compartments.
> Been there, done that.
Not been in one of those, yet. If I do the NG thing and get Cav, then I'll be
there...
> Umm. . . have any of you guys ever gotten out of a
Mostly confined to the Brit stuff and older vehicles. You know that.
> The DRIVER is the one that lowers the ramp. You
Does the 113 have the power lever next to the ramp?
> knowledge. It's that way for a REASON, that being the
Exactly.
> Crap. A smart and fast troop can get as close as he
If he's aware and focused on the track and what it's doing. It can still
squish him if he doesn't move his butt.
> At 4:07 PM -0700 7/17/02, John Atkinson wrote:
I was driving along and noted a Tick-tick-tick-tick sound that isnt'
normally there. Turned around and looked around and saw a light where there
isn't normally light. I looked closer. SHIT FIRE! Pulled over, turned around
and looked closer.....Hmm. Its small. Hmm. Blow it out...can't too deep next
to the battery box and the gearbox with the
radio above.... Hmm, use the fire-extinguisher...hmm, nope its the
once it's on, it's on type....hmm. Blow it out, hey that worked...
> In those circumstances it's safer in the tank than
That line is getting blurred. see Achizeriat or other IDF heavy APCs made from
T55s and Centurions.
> At 9:21 PM -0400 7/17/02, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
I'll ask about the FV432 and spartans on the ferret list. The Saracen's had
double doors that were manually opened and closed.
> The DRIVER is the one that lowers the ramp. You
The ramp lock in the M113 is behind the driver and the hydrolic control for
the ramp is by the right side of the driver. You can lower the ramp without
the engine running but you need the engine to raise the ramp.
There is a hatch in the ramp that you can get in and out of without lowering
the ramp. It is strickly one person out at a time but is manually controled.
You have to duck somewhat but it is not difficult to use.
Warning DO NOT LOWER ramp while hatch is open "right out of the manual".
Upon reading that line, my immediate question is "Why is it possible to do
so?" An interlock would cost maybe US$10 and solve any safety problem. This is
a common design philosophy error in designing industrial machinery of all
kinds.
on 02.7.19 3:43 PM, Scott Siebold at gamers@ameritech.net scribbleth:
> Warning DO NOT LOWER ramp while hatch is open "right out of the
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Edward Lipsett wrote:
> Upon reading that line, my immediate question is "Why is it possible
Until the safety interlock breaks down in the field, and the troopies can't
get *either* door to open! (or can't get one or the other to
close...)
Industrial machinery is one animal; I think the actual military types on the
list would agree that military equipment is a whole 'nother species entirely.
You see this sort of thing with aircraft, too - it is quite possible to
design an aircraft that is practically impossible to stall or spin; but
practically all aircraft still can stall & spin. They do work, though, they're
cheap and they're available. So they're still commonplace.
<cynic> Besides, grunts are probably cheaper than safety interlocks, and
easier to replace... </cynic> :>
(ditto student pilots, come to think of it!)
Brian - yh728@victoria.tc.ca -
- http://wind.prohosting.com/~warbard/games.html -
> on 02.7.19 3:43 PM, Scott Siebold at gamers@ameritech.net scribbleth:
There are many types of interlock... I could design a mechanical interlock
with considerably better reliability than the door. Either of them. AND make
it removable in about 3 s with a quick kick.
on 02.7.19 4:05 PM, Brian Burger at yh728@victoria.tc.ca scribbleth:
> Until the safety interlock breaks down in the field, and the troopies
> 3) Why can't I call artillery down on a grid
The first target of artillery is the other guys artillery. The whole idea in
the Paladin version of the M109 (US 155 SP Arty.) is to stop, fire and go ASAP
before you become a target. If you've got allot of artillery that is not
moving around QUICKLY you will probably find your artillery has a very short
life expectancy.
Also remember that one of the most dangerous jobs in any army is that of the
FO (your artillery spotters). The FOs on the other side and even the guy who
has the next most dangerous job (sniper) is out to get him.
As a side note.
In the SciFi ground games I assume that anything that comes into the combat
zone that is over 25 feet off the ground is dead. This includes flying drones
near ground level up to fixed orbit satellites. If a space ship comes into a
low orbit and stays there (as opposed to a single pass and then get out) it to
will be reclassified as space junk shortly.
The only thing that will allow you to survive over 25 feet is: 1) You are not
in the combat zone but drop into a quiet spot and move there. 2) You are
extremely stealthy and you aren't seen. Please note that sending out
transmissions (i.e.. recon drone) is not stealthy. 3) You are erratic (change
directions often and somewhat randomly) and lucky. 4) You own the space down
to zero feet and can quickly kill anything that doesn't agree with you..
On 19-Jul-02 at 03:15, Edward Lipsett (translation@intercomltd.com)
wrote:
> There are many types of interlock... I could design a mechanical
Even with the whole door slightly bent?
If the door can be closed, the interlock can be removed. If the door is were
bent that the interlock couldn't be removed, I sorta doubt the door could be
closed anyway.
Fortunately I am not involved in military hardware design, though... And so
far, industrial robots aren't in that field! (Plus which, thi is rapidly
getting OT, so... Use a pullshade instead of a door. Lighter too!)
on 02.7.19 5:29 PM, Roger Books at books@jumpspace.net scribbleth:
> There are many types of interlock... I could design a mechanical
> ------------------------------
The hatch is built into the ramp and the track was built in the late 1950's
and early 1960's when reasonable safety did not extend to dummy proofing a
hatch door. I will also say that in use with the US and German Armies I never
did see the hatch open on any M113 when the
ramp went down. The driver had to turn around to release the ramp lock and a
quick glance at the ramp was natural. What I was more worried about was
dropping the ramp on someone which was more likely with the dead vision area
behind the track.
As a side issue every German track that I came across "in position" had it's
"standard issue" case of beer under the ramp ready to be expended as needed
(usually at night when things quieted down). I had to get by with my case of
coke which kept me going (I am a carboholic) in a less social manor.
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:11:20 +0900, Edward Lipsett
> <translation@intercomltd.com> wrote:
> There are many types of interlock... I could design a mechanical
But it would also have to be able to _not_ open if some guy ends up
falling on
it with all of his weight and/or the butt of his gun. It wouldn't
surprise me to learn that someone has thought of an interlock for it, but the
interlock was seen as another point of failure.
> At 7:57 PM -0500 7/19/02, Scott Siebold wrote:
One of the interesting things from the Aussie guys over on the ferret list is
that the Aussie assault troopers would debuss from the M113 before the ramp
was even down and would be to ground before it touched the ground.
Additionally, when the ramp was opening they'd pull themselves over the edge
and slide down the ramp into the vehicle to minimize the vehicle's time in the
area and sitting stationary when they were being picked up. Conversely troops
that
were _just_ getting a ride, would wait for it to open all the way and
close all the way.
--- Edward Lipsett <translation@intercomltd.com>
wrote:
> Upon reading that line, my immediate question is
Uhhh... because when you're trying to unass under combat conditions (why won't
the ramp work? Who knows? I've had ramps fail to drop for at least 4 different
reasons, two of which could not be worked around in the field without access
to spare parts) then Joe Dumb Private will manage to dick up your
fancy interlock (or hit it with his helmet-encased
head moving quick-fast when the lunatic driver hits a
bump going well more than the speed limit[1]) then the entire squad dies
because the vehicle is parked for 5 minutes while they try to figure it out.
KISS. If an design team forgets that principle, people DIE in this line of
work.
Besides, some wiseass NCO would probably disable your
interlock (failing all else, using the 8-lb sledge
method) the first time he saw it.
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >The DRIVER is the one that lowers the ramp. You
Nope. It's mounted next to the driver seat.
> At 1:18 PM -0700 7/21/02, John Atkinson wrote:
This would make it difficult for the crunchies in the back to egress quickly
without the crew wanting them too. They can go over the top or out the smaller
crew door in the ramp. Not as fast as out the ramp with it down.
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Nope. It's mounted next to the driver seat.
Which means he KNOWS we're getting out which means he doesn't run over us
accidentally. We covered that already.
From: "Ryan Gill" <rmgill@mindspring.com>
> One of the interesting things from the Aussie guys over on the ferret