Tank Hatch

Blackhawk 5 · Post by **Blackhawk 5** » 2007-03-06 21:41

I believe that the hatch on MBT should have an extra hatch instaid of the .50 cal...

example:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 6/M1A1.jpg

On the left is the main gun you see in bf2, but on the right has a smaller gun, I believe an M240

China tank:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 8_pic2.jpg

$kelet0r · Post by **$kelet0r** » 2007-03-06 22:01

what purpose would it serve?

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-03-06 22:31

more defens agains AT maybe?

Post by **Bob_Marley** » 2007-03-06 22:32

Additional APERS firepower on the Abrams, other than that not too much. The .50 gunner can already rotate 360 degrees.

Viper5 · Post by **Viper5** » 2007-03-06 23:01

The M240 is manned by the Loader, M2 .50 by the TC

Would require a new model tho

eL33t · Post by **eL33t** » 2007-03-06 23:01

Another benefit would be that the tank could carry four people.

Another "benefit" would be more target practice for all of the snipers and marksmen.

Blackhawk 5 · Post by **Blackhawk 5** » 2007-03-06 23:03

I think USI has a model like that. Someone replied purpose: Realism and additional stopping power to jihadists.

Fenix16 · Post by **Fenix16** » 2007-03-06 23:10

I think its fine as it is. I dont think people actually manage to do too much good in the hatch turrets anyways.

Sneak Attack · Post by **Sneak Attack** » 2007-03-06 23:28

speaking of tanks... on the picture to were you log onto your account, (the tank shooting something) there is a sweet blue cooler on top just sitting there

that should be put in the game because it is funny

ReadMenace · Post by **ReadMenace** » 2007-03-06 23:37

I think it would be neat for them to feature a 'loader' position, w/ the 240. Tank crews w/ a loader would have a faster loading main gun and more AP firepower. In vision, the Abrams would have the TUSK upgrade; the commander would then have a view similar to that of the Cobra gunner (grainy black & white, two zooms) and would not be exposed to enemy fire.

-REad

Teek · Post by **Teek** » 2007-03-07 00:53

Sneak Attack wrote:speaking of tanks... on the picture to were you log onto your account, (the tank shooting something) there is a sweet blue cooler on top just sitting there

that should be put in the game because it is funny

noticed that.
we need that in game, it could hold 'ammo' (beer)

A-10Warthog · Post by **A-10Warthog** » 2007-03-07 02:28

yea usi has the m1a1 with the 2 gunner positions

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2007-03-07 02:35

ReadMenace wrote:I think it would be neat for them to feature a 'loader' position, w/ the 240. Tank crews w/ a loader would have a faster loading main gun and more AP firepower. In vision, the Abrams would have the TUSK upgrade; the commander would then have a view similar to that of the Cobra gunner (grainy black & white, two zooms) and would not be exposed to enemy fire.

-REad

The TC of the M1 Abrams series tanks has been able to fire the M2 HMG from under armor since the base model M1s (with the 105mm cannon). When in the hatch down position, the commander can fire the M2 with a 3x magnification periscope sight.

As for the loader's MG, it isn't worth remodeling the tank to add a 4th position that, realistically, would leave the tank's main weapon virtually inoperable if both he and the commander were manning the MGs, and that has a limited traverse (265 degrees).

BetterDeadThanRed · Post by **BetterDeadThanRed** » 2007-03-07 02:44

While the reactive armor may not be needed in most situations in maneuver warfare, items like the rear slat armor, loader's gun shield, infantry phone (which has already seen use on Marine Corps M1A1s as early as 2003), and Kongsberg Remote Weapons Station for the .50 caliber machine gun will be added to the entire M1A2 fleet over time.

Where did you get that the TUSK upgrade was scrapped?

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2007-03-07 02:49

BetterDeadThanRed wrote:Where did you get that the TUSK upgrade was scrapped?

I edited my post. I was thinking of a different program.

ReadMenace · Post by **ReadMenace** » 2007-03-07 05:35

'[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker']The TC of the M1 Abrams series tanks has been able to fire the M2 HMG from under armor since the base model M1s (with the 105mm cannon). When in the hatch down position, the commander can fire the M2 with a 3x magnification periscope sight.

As for the loader's MG, it isn't worth remodeling the tank to add a 4th position that, realistically, would leave the tank's main weapon virtually inoperable if both he and the commander were manning the MGs, and that has a limited traverse (265 degrees).

I have the sudden urge to get into modelling just so I can force this upon you Eddie.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2007-03-07 05:43

ReadMenace wrote:I have the sudden urge to get into modelling just so I can force this upon you Eddie.

Dude, if you really do have the inclination, skill and time to remodel it, I won't discourage you in the slightest. I have seen people (some of whom are on this forum, incidentally) pick it up amazingly fast and their results were equally amazing.

But a loader position would be rather useless in-game, as he would just be another magnet for anyone with a rifle.

[PR]AC3421 · Post by **[PR]AC3421** » 2007-03-07 09:10

I think that TUSK add on would be awsome for certian maps with M1A1's.

Nimble · Post by **Nimble** » 2007-03-07 11:54

It'd be mighty awesome to have TUSK upgrades on the M1a2 in urban maps like Al Basrah. But I wonder, would it be possible to do the remote weapons station pictured here?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 165522.jpg

Maybe with a view not unlike that we're using with the AH-1z now?

(Edit - Just realized someone already suggested the AH-1z view)