Project Reality Forums

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

In PR of course. I wish we'd get back to the whole team supporting all the assets like in the past. Too much lone gunning with every asset.

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote:When I was a crewmember of an M109A6, my primary job was as driver.

Brought back memories. I was stationed in Ft. Sill Oklahoma on the M109A1 and I was first driver then gunner.
Good read. Thanks

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote: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.

Well, they're expensive so you don't drive away with it just like that
Vanishing tank - YouTube 0:30 "It would take nearly 5 minutes to fire up the tank so it can move again"
it's a TV show and an older tank, but I'm thinking, that it would take at least some time for any modern tank from cold before it gets going.

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.

How long is such a startup cycle?

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.

That's very interesting to hear that shutting down your tank's engine when defending is a common strategy used(and even trained), since I originally assumed you rather had the mobility your tank provides than staying silent.

Edit: I just noticed you were talking about a howitzer instead of a tank, so it could still be that you wouldn't shut down your tank's engine even in a defensive line.

Now, the interesting question here is how long you think the engine/oil/whatnot will stay warm enough so that you can fire up the engine with the mere startup cycle? 1 hour? 2? 3 maybe on a sunny day?

Frontliner wrote:That's very interesting to hear that shutting down your tank's engine when defending is a common strategy used(and even trained), since I originally assumed you rather had the mobility your tank provides than staying silent.
Now, the interesting question here is how long you think the engine/oil/whatnot will stay warm enough so that you can fire up the engine with the mere startup cycle? 1 hour? 2? 3 maybe on a sunny day?

The M109A6 which n2d is on about isn't a tank, its a Self-propelled artillery unit that n2d was a driver for and recalling his experience from it.


Naturally this type of vehicle is designed to operate in both static locations and in the "shoot and scoot" role n2d mentioned.

A normal MBT wouldn't stop like this to provide "fire support" at long ranges like an artillery piece

I noticed myself, I should've realized, then again my knowledge about anything that isn't related to infantry weapons is meh. Point stands though, how long do engines take to cool down that you can just start it up without having to wait for like 5 minutes?

The warmup times for a vehicle are going to have many factors. The specific engine make/size, weather (temp, etc), and in some cases how long ago it was PMCS'd. For example, you can "rapid start" an engine that was recently serviced in motorpool with less concern of damaging it, than trying to hot start a vehicle that's been in the field for weeks or months with only the basic field PMCS.

On a 2.5- or 5-ton for example, "safe" warmup is maybe 3-5 minutes. With our howitzers, I'd fire up the engine first and all of my pre-checks took about 10 minutes before we'd start moving out. I didn't kick it into full speed though until running it low for at least a mile or so, just to make sure. Some of the Bradley that I rode in would sit in idle for up to 30 minutes after startup, but I'm guessing they could roll out in 5-10 with no concerns.


And yes, as noted the M109A6 Paladin is an SP Howitzer. We'd shut down during emplacement because we planned to sit there a while. We don't drop spades and set up our positions if we're doing shoot & scoot ops. But if we were going to be stationary a while, no use in running the engines. We might sit there for hours, maybe days, before we had to move out again. We just had to fire up the engines every once in a while to ensure the batteries were charged, or maybe to keep the heaters going.

In places where you aren't concerned with CB fire, and your AO has enough artillery assets that you don't need to constantly relocate, most crews will emplace their guns. Armor on the other hand is always mobile, same with APC/IFV.


Some vehicles actually have a lamp (usually amber in color) on the dash that advises the driver that the vehicle is running warm enough. It's kind of like an oven in your kitchen, where you turn it on and when the light goes out, the oven is warm enough to start cooking your food. With the vehicles, the light goes out when the engine has warmed up enough to safely drive it.

Startups can also include charging the air systems, warming up other fluids other than just the oil, cycling air filtration, etc. In warmer temps, warmup periods are obviously shorter. Having run it recently can also reduce startup times. But you don't shut off the engines if you think you're going to need starting them up again 5 or 10 minutes later. The few seconds it takes to fire up the engines can burn through several miles worth of fuel, and constantly starting up/shutting down/starting up the engine not only wastes fuel but burdens the engines and increases their rate of wear.

It might help to note, military vehicles don't meter miles driven, they meter hours that the engine is running. You shut down only when needed, and you start it up only when needed.

Thanks for the info. Seems like those cat and mouse games between tanks shutting their engine down will continue, unless you have a plan of course

Currently in PR tank versus tank combat is more like submarine warfare rather than what actually happens in real life. The best way to effectively kill tanks is to hide with your engine off, crank your audio up, and listen to where the enemy armor is. After you have a fix on their position, you can easily quickly position yourself to surprise and kill them. Works 90% of the time and is by far the best tactic to use on any map. If you disagree, well then you need to tank more in PR

Just happened to get to drive the challenger the other day. The 1-2 second delay in throttle cost us. If there was any kind of additional warm up delay that would certainly factor in whether you would want to listen to nearby threats.

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote:And yes, as noted the M109A6 Paladin is an SP Howitzer.

edit: I didn't think to mention the obvious. The M109A1 back when I was in the army didn't allow for firing without setting the rear spades (stationary). Is that possible with the M109A6?

DDS wrote:edit: I didn't think to mention the obvious. The M109A1 back when I was in the army didn't allow for firing without setting the rear spades (stationary). Is that possible with the M109A6?

Starting with the A5's, the chassis suspension and turret stab systems all around have been improved on, making it a lot more (ok, maybe a little more) comfortable to drive over rough terrain and also absorb recoil better. It's good enough that firing the gun without being fully emplaced is safe, both high- and low-angle shots.



That video, from 3/29 FA, 4th ID (Ft Carson) shows a normal day of training gunnery, note the lack of FAASV or anything, they probably just went out with internal racks full. But it shows them firing without spade drop, no shutdown of the engines, and with the A6 you don't need to spend as much time dicking around with collimators, aiming posts, etc. On-board system is sort of like the FCS on an Abrams or Bradley, and for the most part can even auto-align the tube for firing solution (mini-FDC). Hell, even the traverse lock is electric so the driver doesn't have to get up out of his warm seat to unlock and drop it.

But do note the severe recoil and recovery after each shot without the use of spade drop. With the spades down and the howitzer properly settled, you can thump rounds as fast as the crew can shuffle their feet. But without spade, takes a couple of seconds to settle, in my opinion longer than it takes to reload. Besides, I'd hate to do the whole load/fire process with the vehicle bouncing around like a Dr Dre video.


The first gun I fired was an A3, and that thing sucked balls. It was like comparing a Sherman to an Abrams in regards to technical advancement. Most of my training throughout AIT was on the A5 though, but I was able to train on the A6 towards the end of schooling. Once graduated, the A6 were what the line units there were using (mostly).

Its good idea, but it will be more realistic, if we have option of "free ride" enging runing, if u press like "2" u put engine in free ride, and tank will make less noise. Like in cars,... And also u cant move hehe u must first change to 1 with lets say 5 sec waiting till you can drive.

Submarine warfare.. Hahaha good comparison.

N2D, thanks for the info - it's really interesting to read your posts, as always.

As AD mentioned, this was discussed a while back about adding another seat for the driver to "slide into" in order to simulate turning off the engines, in order to get around the python issue. But if I recall, that option was declined due to various reasons.

My concern, what's to stop people from just hopping into that 4th seat while the driver is active, thereby just turning the vehicle into a 4-man vehicle? While the intent is to leave the vehicle as a 3-man crew with an optional 4th-seat for the driver to switch between, you know people are going to abuse that feature and just have random guys hopping in for a ride.

And as for the loader's hatch, I think that was also discussed before. While many modern MBT do have a 30-cal for the loader's hatch, I have seen quite a few vehicles with that weapon mount removed or unused.


This is modern armored warfare. Tanks in reality can engage at extreme distances, and in PR you can engage up to (or beyond) max visual range. Although the max view distance in PR is much shorter than what it might be in reality with magnified optics, it's still nothing that I would consider "close range".

Armored vehicles shouldn't be up close with the enemy's armor. They should be slugging it out from a distance, using terrain to their advantage when possible. When terrain is limited, they use other tactics such as supporting fires. And although the player count per team is limited in PR as opposed to reality, armored vehicle should still never be operating "solo". Every tank on the front lines should have another unit that is working with them. MBT should be supporting troops and APC/IFV, covering each other and exploiting their own strengths while protecting the other from their weakness.

As long as you are using armor properly, with supporting elements, there should be no need to shut down your engines. At the ranges tanks engage threats, you should be far outside of audible distance and using all of your optical tools to locate and identify the enemy. Sure, MOUT is a different story, but again armor operating MOUT should have plenty of "crunchies" in support.

MILF could you please do us a favor and use capitations and use periods instead of comma's everywhere.

If I recall it correctly one of the main reasons not to put in a 4th seat is due to the low number of infantry players that you often have already, more seats in tanks will make this number even lower. Another reason is that when tanks are used correctly there should (should, not is) be no reason to turn of the engine.

One thing about tank warfare, I often get killed by HATs doing "jack in the box" tricks popping up and killing the tank even when having proper infantry, APC and CAS support. Any ideas how to stop this jack in the box tricks with people popping up and shooting their launcher over a big distance in one second?

If you have played PR recently you will note that most tank squads shut down engines for tactics exploiting engine shut downs. If the do not they don't live to tell story. Long distant engagements happen on some maps but not all. Secondy, having the luxury of supporting armor such as APC's is not forced and only when that squad chooses to roll up to your aid. How often do logistical trucks supprt vehicals..? Not alot. The majority of tank, APC , CAS, jet, MTLB, BTR, ect squaring off on their enemy counterparts and the team be damned. So changes that occur create behaviors that may need to be addressed. Having the ability to shut down engines may have addressed reality or functional considerations but you don't know the full effect until youve tried them. I don't envy the decisions the DEV's have to make.

- sent using Tapatalk HD

Well i saw SAA tanks in Syria shutting down. In pr it would be nice to see that function. Just make the 4th seat only enterable if driver seat is empty

CrazyHotMilf wrote:first of all , i'll do what ever i'll want as long its allowed according to the forum rules , i dont care i dont care what you think , and personally i think your the worst player that there is , you always whine and you even got kicked from you own clan , please keep your nose out of business , with love - milf

I know this is off topic, but Bronk was just kindly asking you to structure your posts a bit better because it's very awkward to read, no reason to flame the guy whatsoever.

I personally think part of the problem why tanks shut down their engine is the whole "hit-or-miss" attitude when vehicles are concerned: You kill too easily and you die too easily and for that reason tanks lie in wait instead of supporting an assault.

I'm going to make a few assumptions here(to get rid of the hit-or-miss vehicle warfare), but if tanks could survive 1 HAT or tank shell even when hit in the rear, coupled with the vehicle start up timer this topic is about, tank and anti-tank combat would see drastic changes in various aspects:

Tank vs Tank combat:
a) It is no longer beneficial as much to jump out of your vehicle in order to listen for an enemy tank since you'll have to get another shot of. Even if you get the first hit, the enemy tank can just back out of your sight and retreat to base. And since you can't pursuit due to the start up time, all you did was to force a retreat or repair at 0 tickets lost.
b) So, in order for such an ambush to work, you'd need 2 tanks with a similar attacking angle, meaning 2 tanks close together, and that just screams CAS, especially since neither tank will be able to make a quick get-away if something airbourne says hello. Also, this method of ambush negates the ability to effectively control the map(when 2 tanks are in play), so the enemy armour has no (armoured)opposition on the other side of the map.

Tank vs Infantry combat:
a) Tanks could work against infantry now with a bit more care than previously. Like Bronk mentioned, enemy HATs would just pop out of cover and 1-hit you and you have no time to re- or counter-act. Somebody would say you'd be more careful if you can get one-shotted, but that's just not the case. HAT's there, shoots once, you're dead. You're more careful if you know you've got another shot at it if you know from where it came.

Infantry vs. Tank combat:
a) We can still have 2 HATs, especially since 100 player servers are coming. 1 HAT for 50 players when the enemy can have 3-4 tanks? Tanks would have so much of a field day against infantry if only 1 could effectively combat them(not counting TOWs).
b) TOWs should be able to one hit still, just for the fact that they are immobile. I don't know how much stronger they are, but that's just from a gameplay perspective.

Tanks and Logistics:
a) Stronger demand for repairs, and more often on the battlefield due to the fact that tanks survive the first shell guaranteed, but will suffer critical damage(treads, turret) more often.

Tanks and Infantry combined combat:
a) When previously one HAT shot can kill your tank, leaving you with exactly 0 armour, you can suppress the known HAT location to ensure you tank stays alive after the first surprise hit. This encourages combined arms, and I've hardly ever seen any of those because it's just not effective when your tank gets knocked out so easily.

Tank and APC combined combat:
a) Kill the APC or score a hit on the tank? The answer will depend on what else you have in the area to deal the remaining damage.


Thoughts?

Frontliner wrote:...
Thoughts?

I am thinking: "I fully agree!"