M1A1 Abrams tank

Mad Max · Post by **Mad Max** » 2005-11-24 01:54

This is the layout. (this is an A2 as you can see with the big sensor on it, has IR and Radar and all those other goodies in it) It's still the same seating arrangement though.

Heydude235 · Post by **Heydude235** » 2005-11-24 02:02

I like mine more

Mad Max · Post by **Mad Max** » 2005-11-24 02:15

Maybe so, but yours isn't as accurate to true life. Plus it makes more sense for the commander to man the cupola MG than the gunner, as he'll be busy offing enemy armour.

The M1A1 also had a remote controled M2 above the commander hatch too he could fire whilst inside, but they removed it for some reason on the A2 (I know why but for the life of me I can't remember right at this moment). So the poor bugger has to expose himself on the A2.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-11-24 03:34

the loader doesnt (imo) have a good spot in the game, driver driving commander spotting and MGing and gunner using the main sounds good to me.

Post by **Happy** » 2005-11-24 03:37

The loader would just be another kill for the person that blows up the tank and a waste of a good person.

Heydude235 · Post by **Heydude235** » 2005-11-24 03:54

Well i think my idea is better for online playing with 3 per tank. But it would only need the driver and gunner to work.

DirtySock888 · Post by **DirtySock888** » 2005-11-24 04:07

Cerberus wrote:I wouldn't mind if tanks just needed a driver and gunner. Commander and loader uses up your personnel

Agreed

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2005-11-24 04:29

Mad Max wrote:The M1A1 also had a remote controled M2 above the commander hatch too he could fire whilst inside, but they removed it for some reason on the A2 (I know why but for the life of me I can't remember right at this moment). So the poor bugger has to expose himself on the A2.

Not true. The M1A2 retains the capability of the commander to fire the M2 on his weapons station from under armor.

Heydude235 · Post by **Heydude235** » 2005-11-24 04:36

Again i think that the tanks should be made a 3 persone tank. This would help teamwork. Becuase The driver would drive and look for the best place to go. The gunner would focus on taking out targets. The commander would focus on finding targets.

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2005-11-24 04:52

I have a proposal here for MBTs.

Here is a picture of the general idea:

Now, we all agree that the Gunner should gun, the Driver should drive, and the external gunners seat (Commander) should help spot. That is clearly depicted in the picture.

Now here is something I would like to suggest. All the views given in any modern MBT are all done via cameras of some sort or the small viewports (little purple bulletproof windows).

I think it would be totally amazing if the the Gunners view be given the camera like effect similar to that on the gunners view of the helicopters and bombers.(the one where you right click) This would add to the realistic experience TEN FOLD in my opinion.

Now, the Drivers viewing is something I also think should be a lot more realistic. How about giving the driver the OPTION of using the 360degree CITV Periscope on the top of the turret OR the normal 180degree EYE-VISUAL viewports????

The CITV Periscope should also get the same camera effect as the gunners view. Now at the same time, the alternate Drivers view should be an actual HUD of the little viewport windows!

If its a realistic experience we're after, this would top em all!

Please remember that this would apply to all MBTs currently in the game. Also remember that the US MBT currently in the game IS in fact the M1A2.

minigunmonk · Post by **minigunmonk** » 2005-11-24 09:45

I think you have some very good ideas in there GRB. My biggest question about the original setup of BF2 vehicle crewing is; why does it take two personel to use a Hmmmv effectivley but (as we agree) an MBT is a one man deal. Gay is what that is. The co-axial MG on the turret seem best for covering the rear and sides (from sneaky C4 placement etc), the driver drives and the gunner operates the weapons in the turret. At the very least make EVERY vehicle a two man operation. When I play BF2 with my buddies we get sick of hanging around waiting for a tank to spawn (and usualy it gets stolen) so we started using hmmmv's alot more and with the driver spotting effectivley and calling targets/manuvering to give the correct field of fire etc, its the best thing about BF2 IMO. Teamwork in vehicles is very very rewarding.

Doedel · Post by **Doedel** » 2005-11-24 12:21

Yeah... one driver, one (main) gunner, and two other positions (for commander/loader?) ontop, each manning one of the two machineguns up there on the copulas. Make that ******* the rolling MG beast it should be.

Heydude235 · Post by **Heydude235** » 2005-11-25 01:05

'[R-PUB wrote:GRB']

I like this pic. This should be how the tanks in pr should be set up. The view for the driver. I dont know but i would like tanks to be set up this way. For more teamwork. Also to make tanking harder becuase its to easy in the game.

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2005-11-25 16:58

Why thank you...I drew the whole thing. lol.

Doug97 · Post by **Doug97** » 2005-11-25 19:37

Yes, tanks should require a driver and gunner, and have a space for an optional commander/MG gunner.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-11-25 20:20

It is absolutely vital for Project Reality's gameplay that tanks require a gunner and a driver and that switching between positions in a tank require at least 5 - 10 seconds, so a player can't switch from driver to gunner constantly.

Heydude235 · Post by **Heydude235** » 2005-11-26 05:48

Also getting out of the tanks should take longer.