Rideable tanks

[Tirak]

I dont know... maybe using a hat on a tank should kill the player...

the wrench should be fine a tank and a command truck are like any other vehicle... =/ only a tank is more of a killer than a command truck, but just like repairing the truck you should be able to repair a tank =/

Because then the tanks will ride into battle with engies ontop just wrenching it the whole time. SABOT doesn't have that big a splash effect, and no tanker in their right mind would switch to HEAT in the middle of a tank battle.

[kevlarorc]

I can't really see riding a tank in to battle, fully exposed, and wrenching being an all too popular strategy. A quick burst from the enemy coax and that engie is down. However, if retreating while damaged it could be exploited. Is there a way to disable only certain weapons while in a seat?

[OkitaMakoto]

I'm sure if they had to they would ride on the tank, but they definitely WOULD NOT in a combat zone afaik, get INSIDE on of those love armoured vehicle mate

Exactly. You might hitch a ride to the local town or something before a patrol or whatever, but PR consists of two teams duking it out in a known very hostile environment.

The idea is just silly in my opinion, no offense.

Logistics or not, it just goes against common sense in my mind. I wouldnt be on a tank[prime target for an attack] in the middle of combat.

Besides, in PR, the tanks dont really normally go where you as an infantry man are going. They should be going to the hills on Kashan and on the outskirts or whatever.

I can imagine all these pubbies jumping on your squads tank saying "take me to west outpost" when you are NOT a transport vehicle... We have humvees, helos, and command trucks for that role. Dont bog down a tank with your inability to find decent transport.

[Ecko]

OkitaMakoto;765098']Exactly. You might hitch a ride to the local town or something before a patrol or whatever, but PR consists of two teams duking it out in a known very hostile environment.

The idea is just silly in my opinion, no offense.

Logistics or not, it just goes against common sense in my mind. I wouldnt be on a tank[prime target for an attack] in the middle of combat.

Besides, in PR, the tanks dont really normally go where you as an infantry man are going. They should be going to the hills on Kashan and on the outskirts or whatever.

I can imagine all these pubbies jumping on your squads tank saying "take me to west outpost" when you are NOT a transport vehicle... We have humvees, helos, and command trucks for that role. Dont bog down a tank with your inability to find decent transport.

That said, it will cut down your time to run in a bad situation by half. For example on kashan, tanks going from main to village will wait at the hill, you just foot it out from hill instead of from main base (assuming all transport vehicles are down!)

[Bringerof_D]

What's with all the WWII suggestions lately? I'm pretty sure soldiers don't die tank into battle any more.
The only reason you have to do 100 mile jogs is because people abandon the vehicles in the desert.

given the situation, troops will ride ontop of tanks.

- areas where light vehichles would be a liability and APCs are not available

- where there are tight areas where it is risky for tanks to enter because enemies can hide with rpgs/explosives on the ground (tank drivers dont have the clearest vision with the periscopes so mines put in place may be hard ton spot

- where you need the firepower of a tank and the agility of infantry to protect said tank

[Challenger.au]

What about a seat coding similar to an APC where you can look around but not shoot, would be useful for those squads who have a tank in them.

You could make it so the seats are squad only....

The squad leader and a few squad members could hitch a ride somewhere a bit closer without being in too much danger to set a rally point?

[LtSoucy]

Most of the time they don't ride on tanks, they use APC's or something else. And no real need, it would make the APC out of a role and other types. There are CO trucks, Cars and other modes of transport for a reason.

[hiberNative]

sounds like a good idea. 2 external seats. like hitching a ride just a short distance since it's so exposed.
has to be on the turret body, though.

[Sanke]

Alot of you are saying it's to risky but think about, would you rather walk 10 minutes and then get gunned down or get a ride far a minute and have the tank kill a guy? It's safer on a tank since you have a turret to defend you and its faster. Still even on foot you would be gunned down.

[OkitaMakoto]

Alot of you are saying it's to risky but think about, would you rather walk 10 minutes and then get gunned down or get a ride far a minute and have the tank kill a guy? It's safer on a tank since you have a turret to defend you and its faster. Still even on foot you would be gunned down.

You dont put things in game out of convenience. Im against it because I feel its unnecessary and adding some lame soccer mom with a mini-van job to a TANK crew whos main and near only role should be dealing with enemy armor threats.

There are APC's, Humvees, and commander trucks who near specialize in troops transport.

[Sanke]

You dont put things in game out of convenience. Im against it because I feel its unnecessary and adding some lame soccer mom with a mini-van job to a TANK crew whos main and near only role should be dealing with enemy armor threats.

There are APC's, Humvees, and commander trucks who near specialize in troops transport.

And if they are taken? Walk in fear of vodniks or snipers?

[STORM-Mama]

Good suggestions. Pictures from the South Ossetian warzone made me think about this aswell. Seen lots of pictures of Russian troops riding on top of tanks or APCs.

[turnpipe]

I would cover the maps with sit on me dots.
Sit on a log, table and etc.
Yepper coding waste of time the engines getting older was we speak.

[SGT.JOKER]

I havent seen picutres or videos of guys doing this since vietnam...

[OkitaMakoto]

And if they are taken? Walk in fear of vodniks or snipers?

and ***** to your team, yes.

If all the transpo is taken, call one of them back or wait for a respawned vehicle/walk. Don't ask your valuable armor to ferry you and take time away from its role.

It just seems to outdated to me. If PR consisted of patrols and periods of quiet in which you walk the streets with your gun lowered, then sure, I'd be all for it... but that's not the case. PR is about straight up warfare, no safe zones and no time to be sitting atop a tank reading your comics.

[WildBill1337]

ive actually seen a video from iraq (second iraq war before the fall of saddaam's regime) taken by a helmate cam of a guy riding on top of a tank. a technical came driving by from the rear of the tank, and he shot at it with his m4, then as the technical passed in front, the coaxial just lit it up. it was really cool.

this would be mostly useful for a squad that has a tank in it, but the rest of the squad needs a ride, so the tank lets the rest of the squad ride atop it to the combat zone, then before enetering the area, the infantry jump off and cover the tank. yes that is how it really works. guys DO ride on top of tanks sometimes.

im all in favor of the idea.

[M.Warren]

I'm sorry, but I'm firmly against adding infantry slots to tanks to ride on them. I'm not just trying to be negative, because this whole idea was also brought up when something was mentioned about the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) having the Markava tank with rideable slots sometime ago.

But as a veteran APC and Tank user I see more problems arising from this than solutions. Most of the people posting thier opinions on this "rideable tank" theory would be great because they're not the ones having to cater to some random loner hopping on a tank. Than demanding a ride to a location when us armorers have better things to do by assisting the rest of the team with coverfire.

I can see it now -

GRENADIER: I need a ride to south village.
ARMOR: We're not heading to south village, we're maintaining defense over the bunker complex.
GRENADIER: TAKE ME TO SOUTH VILLAGE.
ARMOR: Negative.
(GRENADIER proceeds to jump out of the seat, hops ontop of the tank and shoots the ARMOR squads engineer and scampers off.)

... Yeah, real good idea.

Not sure how many of the people posting on this thread going "zomg dis is AWESOME" has ever commanded a tank and kept it alive a whole round with 50-75+ kills. Let alone had enough self-control to prevent oneself from driving off in a one-man-tank. Or even flown a squad of infantry in a helicopter safely to an LZ without getting killed within 10 minutes of hopping into the pilot seat.

What about the transportation slot placement? Last thing we need is people sitting on the sides of the tank blocking the view of the gunner from a potential target. People will go AFK, people will be idiots. Murphy's laws remain true: "If things can f@#% up, they will." it's fine as is, leave it be.

There are already more than enough alternatives for transportation. Think about it, 3 transport jeeps spawn at a 2 firebases and 2 bunkers. Do the math. 3 x 4 = 12, yeah that's 12 JEEPS for you to use. Theres also APC's available, transport helicopters, support trucks, rally points.

If you don't atleast have 1 of these options available, it's either because your not being resourceful enough or your team sucks. Last thing we need to do is lower the standards bar for the masses. The masses need to raise the standards for themselves and meet the criteria of being successful.

We don't need to start adding another B.S. role to Tanks. They have enough to worry about. Although tanks are somewhat impervious to most other attacks, but Tank on Tank battles are one of the most intense types of conflicts. Where the Commander, Gunner and Engineer must be working in fluid unison to pull things together, not to mention if other friendly or enemy tanks are around. It's alot harder to be a tank than you think. Whereas infantry get's shot and respawns within 60 seconds, Tanks have to wait a solid 20 minutes. There is no room for error when the costs are this high.

If anyone should have a say in the matter if Tanks get "rideable slots" for infantry, it should be the veteran tankers out there. Not the grunts that are complaining about an additional source of transportation to pick up thier slack. I've played both sides of the fence, Tanker and Squad Leader and I still say we don't need it.

[Tirak]

I disagree, I have tanked and one of the things that becomes readily apparent is without a proper infantry screen you become a very large target for TOWs and HATs, now yes, you can plan for TOWs, and yes a tank can eliminate HAT gunners, but you stand a far better chance of staying alive with an extra couple of guys screening the terrain infront. The problem with that is though, that the infantry either has to take a jeep, trail along behind you and then dismount from that jeep and screen ahead when the terrain gets bad, or you move your tank at walking speeds, both are undesireable. Giving the tank ride along slots allows you to keep infantry backup with you without wasting a jeep and sacrificing mobility in open areas. Now I agree, you bring up a fair point about random blues being idiots, to combat that I propose a tank gets three extra slots for ride alongs, but they operate under the same squad restriction, the must be in the same squad as the driver.

[Rambo Hunter]

The riding on tanks has been replaced by APCs and IFV.
It would fit in great with PR:1944, though.

[OkitaMakoto]

I'm sorry, but I'm firmly against adding infantry slots to tanks to ride on them. I'm not just trying to be negative, because this whole idea was also brought up when something was mentioned about the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) having the Markava tank with rideable slots sometime ago.

But as a veteran APC and Tank user I see more problems arising from this than solutions. Most of the people posting thier opinions on this "rideable tank" theory would be great because they're not the ones having to cater to some random loner hopping on a tank. Than demanding a ride to a location when us armorers have better things to do by assisting the rest of the team with coverfire.

I can see it now -

GRENADIER: I need a ride to south village.
ARMOR: We're not heading to south village, we're maintaining defense over the bunker complex.
GRENADIER: TAKE ME TO SOUTH VILLAGE.
ARMOR: Negative.
(GRENADIER proceeds to jump out of the seat, hops ontop of the tank and shoots the ARMOR squads engineer and scampers off.)

... Yeah, real good idea.

Not sure how many of the people posting on this thread going "zomg dis is AWESOME" has ever commanded a tank and kept it alive a whole round with 50-75+ kills. Let alone had enough self-control to prevent oneself from driving off in a one-man-tank. Or even flown a squad of infantry in a helicopter safely to an LZ without getting killed within 10 minutes of hopping into the pilot seat.

What about the transportation slot placement? Last thing we need is people sitting on the sides of the tank blocking the view of the gunner from a potential target. People will go AFK, people will be idiots. Murphy's laws remain true: "If things can f@#% up, they will." it's fine as is, leave it be.

There are already more than enough alternatives for transportation. Think about it, 3 transport jeeps spawn at a 2 firebases and 2 bunkers. Do the math. 3 x 4 = 12, yeah that's 12 JEEPS for you to use. Theres also APC's available, transport helicopters, support trucks, rally points.

If you don't atleast have 1 of these options available, it's either because your not being resourceful enough or your team sucks. Last thing we need to do is lower the standards bar for the masses. The masses need to raise the standards for themselves and meet the criteria of being successful.

We don't need to start adding another B.S. role to Tanks. They have enough to worry about. Although tanks are somewhat impervious to most other attacks, but Tank on Tank battles are one of the most intense types of conflicts. Where the Commander, Gunner and Engineer must be working in fluid unison to pull things together, not to mention if other friendly or enemy tanks are around. It's alot harder to be a tank than you think. Whereas infantry get's shot and respawns within 60 seconds, Tanks have to wait a solid 20 minutes. There is no room for error when the costs are this high.

If anyone should have a say in the matter if Tanks get "rideable slots" for infantry, it should be the veteran tankers out there. Not the grunts that are complaining about an additional source of transportation to pick up thier slack. I've played both sides of the fence, Tanker and Squad Leader and I still say we don't need it.

[/THREAD]


What I would have loved to say but failed. (I'm not a tanker)

I disagree, I have tanked and one of the things that becomes readily apparent is without a proper infantry screen you become a very large target for TOWs and HATs, now yes, you can plan for TOWs, and yes a tank can eliminate HAT gunners, but you stand a far better chance of staying alive with an extra couple of guys screening the terrain infront. The problem with that is though, that the infantry either has to take a jeep, trail along behind you and then dismount from that jeep and screen ahead when the terrain gets bad, or you move your tank at walking speeds, both are undesireable. Giving the tank ride along slots allows you to keep infantry backup with you without wasting a jeep and sacrificing mobility in open areas. Now I agree, you bring up a fair point about random blues being idiots, to combat that I propose a tank gets three extra slots for ride alongs, but they operate under the same squad restriction, the must be in the same squad as the driver.

Because in modern warfare, tanks rely on soldiers sitting on top of them to survey their surroundings[?]. This idea BARELY holds up when talking about transport to the front line, but falls flat on its face when you're suggesting they be added to aid in actual combat. This isn't Halo.