Turn engine off on vehicles

[DDS]

You dont usually turn off a vehicle even if you stay still because you need electric or hydraulic power for the turret and electrics and without electrics the digital sights shouldnt work either, or the air-conditioning, or the autorealoader, or the smokedispenser

This is partly correct I think? If you run hydraulics (power) for a long period of time you can drain system power. I'm not aware of how long but it is for each vehicle perhaps on average not more than 30-45 minutes?. Not enough reason to remove the ability to kill the engine. It's a tactical advantage that is very realistic.

[Rhino]

It's a tactical advantage that is very realistic.

And your Source of this information is....?

[DDS]

And your Source of this information is....?

Edit: Assuming your refering to killing the engine is an advantage? Or hydraulics?!

On engine my answer would be the 50 plus times I've rolled up to a tank silently waiting (engine off) just before it blast me into oblivion. Wouldn't know inrl military situation. But feel free to fill in the blanks..

- sent using Tapatalk HD

[Rhino]

Edit: Assuming your refering to killing the engine is an advantage? Or hydraulics?!

On engine my answer would be the 50 plus times I've rolled up to a tank silently waiting (engine off) just before it blast me into oblivion. Wouldn't know inrl military situation. But feel free to fill in the blanks..

- sent using Tapatalk HD

I was referring more to you claiming it being "very realistic"

[DDS]

I was referring more to you claiming it being "very realistic"

No claim. Just seems that way ingame. I wouldn't know as I've never operated a tank in battle. Am I in trouble?

- sent using Tapatalk HD

[nAyo]

Anyone with a little bit of skill with armour knows that it's a key to do soundchecks by turning engine off. Anyone that denies it is bad at armour and shouldn't even take it on a server.

Very simple.

[ChallengerCC]

Anything new about this feature?

[ExeTick]

would be cool to see when you go into "commander spot" in your tank you cannot drive the tank but your engine stays on. and to drive it you have to get back to "Driver seat" to drive again.

the only thing I can think of is if your driver of the tank gets out your engine will still be on. but when both driver and gunner gets out your engine will be turned off.

I cant think of any other solution.

[DDS]

I'd wonder if its possible to use binoculars while in the commander seat (top turrett) and select .50 cal when needed instead of having to hop out to use binoculars?

[Mikemonster]

Is it possible to code something so that the engine turns on when the GUNNER enters the vehicle?

So the tank is silent with only a driver, and the engine turns on when a second person enters.

Obviously the driver would be able to drive it from the start (with no noise), but could you not set a delay timer that prevents the tank moving before the screen goes black?

Or am I just missing something completely..?


By the way when people say 'realistic' or not, you need to define in what circumstances. It's not going to be realistic for a tank to turn it's engine off and 'listen' for enemy tanks (with the driver dismounted with binos) during a planned assault, is it? Tanks all crashing through trees, knowing the rough enemy forces and also having schedules to meet, air units to co-ordinate with, etc.

Then on the other hand, if the tank is hull down and in a prepared defensive perimiter with supporting defences, it's not likely to be running it's noisy and hot diesel engine 24/7, is it? It's going to be using it's auxiliary power source, the small diesel unit or whatever each specific model has for this EXACT purpose.


Both of the above scenarios seem to have been used to represent each persons view of reality. The simple fact is that PR represents neither of them, so really anything goes. (I.e. as long as a reason for such a thing is consistent, it's easy to accept - Deviation and epipens are a couple of examples that spring to mind).

Giving a specific, narrowly defined 'realism' argument is easy, anyone can do it, but PR is representative, not literal.

Personally I think PR represents a hasty attack/defence in every map, with disparate forces that have been 'thrown together' as a scratch attack/defence force. And as such in this case engines of tanks, apc's etc should ALWAYS be on. Jeeps and cars obviously not, unless the vehicle has a history of unreliability and you would prefer to leave it on during a risky day at work..

[Heavy Death]

Is it possible to code something so that the engine turns on when the GUNNER enters the vehicle?

That, or when either of them enter the vehicle.

[chilean]

Correct me if im wrong please!

But doesnt the tank has to have its engine on in order to make the turret able to traverse and use its mechanism,etc??

[K4on]

Correct me if im wrong please!

But doesnt the tank has to have its engine on in order to make the turret able to traverse and use its mechanism,etc??

afaik the german leo2a6 is able to move the turret without having the engine on. this should be possible for other modern tanks aswell. Ofcourse, only for a limited time. but it works.

[[F|H]Zackyx]

And your Source of this information is....?

New BMPT "Terminator" have an automous power plan , I know some new us armor will have battery to be able to operate silently but from what i know its a new generation feature on armored vehicules



7m01 ====> Proving Ground: The Terminator! (English Subtitles) - YouTube

[Mikemonster]

Image - Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) For Main Battle Tanks (MBT) & Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFV)

Some have them apparently, some don't. Presumably it just varies from mission to mission/unit to unit.

I'm not putting this here as a source, instead just as info btw.

I would presume you would need some hefty batteries to power an MBT's systems if the main alternator[s]? were offline. It was always my understanding that tanks would have little diesel generators instead.

[Rhino]

Zackyx;1885470']New BMPT "Terminator" have an automous power plan , I know some new us armor will have battery to be able to operate silently but from what i know its a new generation feature on armored vehicules

Ye, I know the Challenger 2 for example has two engines, the second one is mainly a backup so it can still power the turret and other systems if the main engine goes but this doesn't confirm that its realistic for tanks to "turn off their engines" in battle so they don't "make a noise".

[[F|H]Zackyx]

It will make less noise for sure but silent i don't know, between a small engine and a 1500 + HP engine or turbine i think it will make a huge difference .

[DDS]

Rhino;1885741']Ye, I know the Challenger 2 for example has two engines, the second one is mainly a backup so it can still power the turret and other systems if the main engine goes but this doesn't confirm that its realistic for tanks to "turn off their engines" in battle so they don't "make a noise".

Didn't know this. The tactic of turning off engine came after I remember tanks moved in collumns, would use jeep/ scout ahead. Now this cat and mouse activity between armor is the norm.

[Mikemonster]

DDS, do you mean in 'real life' or in PR?

[Ninja2dan]

Mind you, I'm no mechanic but my experience around military vehicles is that you don't just start them up and roll out. Most of the heavier engines need time to "spool up", get warm, make sure the oil and stuff is good, etc. Any time we fire up the engines, we'd let it go for a few minutes while I ran through our checklists.

By shutting the engines down, you do still have use of your aux power, but those only have limited use before you need the engines to recharge the system. Aux power is sufficient for most electrical systems like comms, FCS/BC, and with most modern vehicles it's also used to power a turret.

But by having the engines off, if you do need to get up and move in a hurry, you're in trouble. If you've got incoming, a running engine means you just dump it into gear and take off. A down engine means you need to wait for that startup cycle before you can move out, and if too quickly you might even stall out a few times.


When I was a crewmember of an M109A6, my primary job was as driver. There were generally two types of setups that we used. The first was a full emplacement, where we'd drop the spades, dig in, set up ammo tents, etc. In those situations we'd unlock the tube and get into position with the engine running, and when in our final position we'd shut down. Aux power allowed us the use of our comms, lighting, and other primary electronics. We had some limited electrical control of the turret, but if we had to stay in position for a while with engines off we'd do much of the turret and gun adjustments by hand. Aux power did adjust the gun during fire missions though.

The second method is during "shoot and scoot", where you want to keep everything ready to move out as quickly as possible. In those situations, we didn't drop the spades, we left the engines running, and rarely did we exit the vehicle. If we had a fire mission, we could thump rounds and be able to move on to our next position in a matter of seconds.


Armor crews such as MBT, IFV, etc might do things differently. But in "modern" conventional warfare, the chances of an MBT meeting an enemy MBT at a close enough range to hear their engines is quite unlikely. Back in say WWII it was a different story, and I've heard many vets talk about shutting down their engines back then. But I'm not sure if that's something modern armor crews do now, and if so how often.

In my opinion, if you're in a location where imminent combat is possible, you shouldn't be shutting off your engines, hopping out to take a dump, anything that would be considered a risk. And in PR, from the moment the round starts to the moment it ends, you are considered to be "in imminent or direct combat". PR:ArmA2 might be different, like if you're actually sitting there for an hour and you're 5+ miles from the "front lines". But PR, everything you do should be considered at risk of attack at any second.