Page 1 of 1
Tank Hatch
Posted: 2007-03-06 21:41
by Blackhawk 5
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
Posted: 2007-03-06 22:01
by $kelet0r
what purpose would it serve?
Posted: 2007-03-06 22:31
by 77SiCaRiO77
more defens agains AT maybe?
Posted: 2007-03-06 22:32
by Bob_Marley
Additional APERS firepower on the Abrams, other than that not too much. The .50 gunner can already rotate 360 degrees.
Posted: 2007-03-06 23:01
by Viper5
The M240 is manned by the Loader, M2 .50 by the TC
Would require a new model tho
Posted: 2007-03-06 23:01
by eL33t
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.
Posted: 2007-03-06 23:03
by Blackhawk 5
I think USI has a model like that. Someone replied purpose: Realism and additional stopping power to jihadists.
Posted: 2007-03-06 23:10
by Fenix16
I think its fine as it is. I dont think people actually manage to do too much good in the hatch turrets anyways.
Posted: 2007-03-06 23:28
by Sneak Attack
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
Posted: 2007-03-06 23:37
by ReadMenace
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
Posted: 2007-03-07 00:53
by Teek
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)
Posted: 2007-03-07 02:28
by A-10Warthog
yea usi has the m1a1 with the 2 gunner positions
Posted: 2007-03-07 02:35
by Eddie Baker
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).
Posted: 2007-03-07 02:44
by BetterDeadThanRed
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?
Posted: 2007-03-07 02:49
by Eddie Baker
BetterDeadThanRed wrote:Where did you get that the TUSK upgrade was scrapped?
I edited my post. I was thinking of a different program.
Posted: 2007-03-07 05:35
by ReadMenace
'[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.
Posted: 2007-03-07 05:43
by Eddie Baker
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.
Posted: 2007-03-07 09:10
by [PR]AC3421
I think that TUSK add on would be awsome for certian maps with M1A1's.
Posted: 2007-03-07 11:54
by Nimble
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)
