Bradley Passengers

[Hub]

Can somebody tell me how many dismounts the Bradley can actually carry? I'm confused by most sources that state the M2 can carry six dismounts. Yet, a US Mech Infantry Platoon has four M2's, in which the following all have to get inside:

3 squads (2 fireteams + squad leader = 9 ) total 27 men
1 Platoon Leader
1 Platoon Sergeant
2 Section Leaders

Add six more men for three Javelin teams, in some TOE's. Total of 37 men. I did read in one place that the M2 could carry up to ten dismounts in a pinch, but that was only one source...I can't see splitting a squad across more than one vehicle, but maybe I'm wrong about that, too?

[kbluck]

There are seven seats in the rear for dismounts, although one is wedged behind the turret basket against the driver. That guy better be skinny, and has to keep his legs crossed or something. :crosseye:

( 7 dismounts + 3 crew ) * 4 vehicles = max 40 personnel.

There are three dismount squads of 9 men (that includes the Javelin and an M240 MG besides) distributed among the 4 Bradleys. There is one extra gunner-trained man in the rear as well to replace the PL when he dismounts from the turret. So, theoretically, the platoon can put 28 men on the ground.

28 / 4 = 7, no room for dedicated RTO, FO, medic, or any other attachments with a full-strength platoon. But, hey, a picture is worth a thousand words:

http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-21.71/figa-3.gif

In reality, of course, even in peacetime fully manned platoons are rarities. Add in the inevitable attrition of field and combat operations, and most platoons are doing quite well to get 20 men on the ground. The vehicles, of course, need to be fully crewed at all times.

--- Kevin

[Hub]

kbluck:

Thanks for the answer and the picture- that did the trick. Thanks also for your database- it makes a big difference to ATF, IMO. Guess I'm a little appalled that a squad would in fact be split across two vehicles. Seems bad for cohesion if the two vehicles got separated for some reason...

[CPangracs]

...no room for dedicated RTO, FO, medic, or any other attachments with a full-strength platoon. But, hey, a picture is worth a thousand words...In a mech infantry unit, medical personnel are on their own M113A2 or A3, the FO is in a FIST-V, and the commo section is either with the 1SG's M113 or in a High-Top Hummer. There really is no dedicated RTO for a vehicle, although one of the fire team member normally carries a MANPAC radio when dismounted.

Also, in 3 years with a mech unit, I NEVER saw even one full-up platoon, and I was in a QRF unit ready to deploy within 24 hours. Medics, Commo, Mechanics,...all were trained AND utilized as infantrymen during platoon STX and other major events. Soldier First!

Lastly, I don't think that 7-8 dismounts and all the weapons and ammo needed could truly fit in the Brad. This is why you see just about everything, to include spare ammo, Javelin, and other rounds, outside the vehicle.

[kbluck]

What you describe is accurate, and I consider it a disturbing example of overcentralization. Ironic, considering how we are moving towards such an asymmetric doctrine that enshrines small independent units.

It used to be that the PL had his own dedicated radioman, the platoon had at least one medic and one forward observer (as distinct from the company FST), and there was still room for other attachments as necessary, like actual dedicated MG teams.

Now, the already busy PL is essentially on his own when he needs to call for fire, platoon casualties have to wait for the ambulance to roll up or hope a litter team happens to be nearby, the RTO either has to be taken from a squad or will be busy doing squad stuff when the PL needs to find him, etc. These guys can be attached for dismount operations, but if the platoon needs to ride anywhere, they'll need an extra vehicle to tag along.

Personally, I think the fundamental problem is that the Brad just doesn't carry enough men. I think the platoon ought to have three turretless versions capable of carrying 10 dismounts, and one with the existing turret for fire support. And give the company back its ITVs to make up the lost TOWs. You could also have a dismountable M220 TOW launcher on top if you needed the extra antitank oomph.

That would give each platoon room for 37 dismounts, allowing them to act like real infantry again instead of mechanics, offer some padding for attrition, extra backs for the ammo, and make room for some support as well. True, they'd lose some firepower, mainly the 3 autocannons if the ITVs came back, but the extra grunts would go a long way towards filling that gap. In my opinion the Brad is too fragile to treat like a tank anyway, as unfortunately it too often is.

--- Kevin

[RedMike]

Hey Hub,

I refer you to your TacOps Library manual 7-7J Mech Inf Plt Bradley for additional load outs, not that that replaces these guys real world experience. Good stuff here!

RedMike OUT

[Hub]

Thanks, RedMike- I remembered it after the fact- this stuff is beginning to make my eyes bleed...

[Pat Proctor]

The hell with bringing back the ITV. Give them TOW HMMWV's. The ITV (and its bastard step-child, the M981 FIST-V) should all be dragged into impact areas and used for target practice.

Once you go B-FIST, you never go back!

[kbluck]

The hell with bringing back the ITV. Give them TOW HMMWV's.

I thought we'd all learned our lesson about expecting soldiers to fight from soft vehicles once and for all in OIF. It doesn't have to be the M901 ITV specifically (although that would be the logical stopgap) but whatever it is, it needs to allow firing and reloading from under armor.

Besides, the M901A3 version with the RISE powerplant greatly rectifies the power problems of the admittedly rather gutless prior models. I don't know if they ever added RISE to the M981.

I can certainly understand why you'd prefer the M7 to the M981, though. I wonder, though, how the new gunnery requirements affect the training cycle? FIST teams already have a lot on their plate. I notice they deleted the TOW launcher after initially including it.

Hey, that reminds me, I need to add the M7 to my DB...

--- Kevin

[Pat Proctor]

Here at NTC, we routinely see FIST teams that have boresighted their 25mm's (to do well at gunnery), rather than their G/VLLD laser designators (to do their damn job)!

I haven't noticed them being mis-used by maneuver commanders in any higher percentages than M981s are mis-used. I think this is just an automatic assumption people make (infantry commanders will think 25mm chaingun = another tank). There isn't much evidence to support that this is really happening.

[kbluck]

I haven't noticed them being mis-used by maneuver commanders in any higher percentages than M981s are mis-used. I think this is just an automatic assumption people make (infantry commanders will think 25mm chaingun = another tank).

When an infantry commander spends far more time training and worrying how to fight the Bradleys rather than how to fight the dismounts, in my opinion, they are acting like tankers rather than infantry. That, in my experience, is quite common. It is greatly encouraged by the clear tradeoff in the Bradley's design favoring track-mounted firepower over boot-mounted.

In fact, that very attitude is strongly reflected in the basic assumptions of ATF's design as well.

--- Kevin