Jump to content
Good Morn*ng

Main Battle Tanks (MBT's)

Recommended Posts

 

First off, this game is unlike any other shooter I encountered; actuallyy I have a hard time playing anything else . I want to know if the developers are panning to add Main Battle Tanks in squad because that would make my life -complete. I love tanks and if we could have T-90 or T-72 that would be amazing. Also a BMP-2 would be much appreciated with the 30 mm auto-canon 

 

please let me know so I can sleep at night !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Good Morn*ng said:

 

First off, this game is unlike any other shooter I encountered; actuallyy I have a hard time playing anything else . I want to know if the developers are panning to add Main Battle Tanks in squad because that would make my life -complete. I love tanks and if we could have T-90 or T-72 that would be amazing. Also a BMP-2 would be much appreciated with the 30 mm auto-canon 

 

please let me know so I can sleep at night !!!!!

You can sleep calmly, tanks are on the way... or can you now? :)

 

Not only that, there will be choppers and maybe even planes...  :)

 

ps. welcome to forum and game, buddy! Cy around!

Edited by Disco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Disco said:

 

You can sleep calmly, tanks are on the way... or can you now? :)

 

Not only that, there will be choppers and maybe even planes...  :)

 

ps. welcome to forum and game, buddy! Cy around!


Even IFV's and AA tanks :'D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope someone makes an Armor Only map primarily. Nothing would be cooler than a 3 man tank crew in 11 tanks per team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all hope the freedom to setup such things will be there for the hosts )

 

Never though about it, but that idea sounds very cool.(I wouldnt play it gg)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure main battle tanks will never be a common sight on the battlefield, in unmodded games anyway. pretty sure 1-2 will be maximum pr team a map... Squad is an infantry based game after all. and as vehicles are now, they must be supported by infantry to function.... good luck driving a heavy tank through sumari bala atm... it will get blown to pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Shovely Joe said:

I'm pretty sure main battle tanks will never be a common sight on the battlefield, in unmodded games anyway. pretty sure 1-2 will be maximum pr team a map... Squad is an infantry based game after all. and as vehicles are now, they must be supported by infantry to function.... good luck driving a heavy tank through sumari bala atm... it will get blown to pieces.



wouldnt be suprised to se 3 MBT's a side.. also with the introduction of more assets. i hope to god i don't see people strolling through samurai with out any forward map control via friendly ground units... you want to lose a tank for 20 minutes be my guest but at the current level of usage with asssets in game it makes me cringe seeing humvves,bmps rolling straight down a road into chaos instead of staying back and supporting infantry units. 

the cliche back in PR days it ws common for tank units to stay at main until requested for support not spear heading a match.

also adding they had kit restrictions and timers if you died with a AT kit you couldn't respawn as one again until te timer counted out.. so in return you wont see as much kit abuse people will hold onto them for dear life.

 

Edited by Bigsmokeee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

better question is how realistically Dev team will model the Armor.

 

Essnetially anything with Plain steel ( Like T55/T62 tanks that a Insurgent group would get)  are very vulnerable and uprotected to Cemical energy muntions, meaning the most basic RPG7 , LAW  would cut through them like a Hot knife through butter.

 

ID say Milita Might have more modern tanks like Former Warpact Liscense Built T72M/M1 tanks. These Have Composite layers ( Turret has Cast steel with Quartz Filling, and Hull are Steel plates with Plexiglass sandwitched in between)  and thus are much better protected against CE munitions from Portable ( Frontally) and would require Side or Rear shots with RPG's or Laws to killl  but Modern TOW would still get through them. and itsArmor entirely Ineffective compared to the ammunition of modern MBT's. Of other factions.

 

 

Then OFC Modern army tanks ID wager RUssia would get the T-90A ( or a T90M given the recent modernization) , and US faction the M1A2 SEP V2 abrams.

 

These would basically full frontally immune except for each others modern Kinetic Energy ammo (APFSDS) although here some balacing needed as Current M829A3 is quoted as being able to fully negate Kontact 5  , and thus Plink T90A's are farily long ranges and to a certain excent Relikt ERA at lest at closer ranges. Id T90 would have a harder time killing the current service abrams. NOt to mention comapratively T90 is not surviable like the Abrams due to ammuntion placement ( crew is surrounded by ammo) whereas in the Abrams ammuntion is in a seperate Area and has blowout panels if ammunition is stuck to direct flames upwards and prevent a Catastrophic explosion from, therefore allowing the crew to survive.

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kev2go said:

better question is how realistically Dev team will model the Armor.

 

Essnetially anything with Plain steel ( Like T55/T62 tanks that a Insurgent group would get)  are very vulnerable and uprotected to Cemical energy muntions, meaning the most basic RPG7 , LAW  would cut through them like a Hot knife through butter.

 

ID say Milita Might have more modern tanks like Former Warpact Liscense Built T72M/M1 tanks. These Have Composite layers ( Turret has Cast steel with Quartz Filling, and Hull are Steel plates with Plexiglass sandwitched in between)  and thus are much better protected against CE munitions from Portable ( Frontally) and would require Side or Rear shots with RPG's or Laws to killl  but Modern TOW would still get through them. and itsArmor entirely Ineffective compared to the ammunition of modern MBT's. Of other factions.

 

 

Then OFC Modern army tanks ID wager RUssia would get the T-90A ( or a T90M given the recent modernization) , and US faction the M1A2 SEP V2 abrams.

 

These would basically full frontally immune except for each others modern Kinetic Energy ammo (APFSDS) although here some balacing needed as Current M829A3 is quoted as being able to fully negate Kontact 5  , and thus Plink T90A's are farily long ranges and to a certain excent Relikt ERA at lest at closer ranges. Id T90 would have a harder time killing the current service abrams. NOt to mention comapratively T90 is not surviable like the Abrams due to ammuntion placement ( crew is surrounded by ammo) whereas in the Abrams ammuntion is in a seperate Area and has blowout panels if ammunition is stuck to direct flames upwards and prevent a Catastrophic explosion from, therefore allowing the crew to survive.

An Abrams would likely be vulnerable to tow 2b, right? Unless it has those new fancy directed energy diverses of course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2016 at 5:02 AM, Robin Sage said:

Hope someone makes an Armor Only map primarily. Nothing would be cooler than a 3 man tank crew in 11 tanks per team. 

Yeah you have it already its called world of tanks ;-) hahaha just kidding thats actually not bad of an idea.

On 11/13/2016 at 6:47 AM, DanielNL said:

And let's not forget T-62 for insurgents/militia! :) (With epic long reload time! ;) )

T-55,T-62,T-72,And T-90 are the must have thanks in the game.For insurgents,Militia forces,And Russian Army.

The first two with 4 man crew the last two with there auto-loader systems and 3 man crew.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kev2go said:

better question is how realistically Dev team will model the Armor.

 

Essnetially anything with Plain steel ( Like T55/T62 tanks that a Insurgent group would get)  are very vulnerable and uprotected to Cemical energy muntions, meaning the most basic RPG7 , LAW  would cut through them like a Hot knife through butter.

 

ID say Milita Might have more modern tanks like Former Warpact Liscense Built T72M/M1 tanks. These Have Composite layers ( Turret has Cast steel with Quartz Filling, and Hull are Steel plates with Plexiglass sandwitched in between)  and thus are much better protected against CE munitions from Portable ( Frontally) and would require Side or Rear shots with RPG's or Laws to killl  but Modern TOW would still get through them. and itsArmor entirely Ineffective compared to the ammunition of modern MBT's. Of other factions.

 

 

Then OFC Modern army tanks ID wager RUssia would get the T-90A ( or a T90M given the recent modernization) , and US faction the M1A2 SEP V2 abrams.

 

These would basically full frontally immune except for each others modern Kinetic Energy ammo (APFSDS) although here some balacing needed as Current M829A3 is quoted as being able to fully negate Kontact 5  , and thus Plink T90A's are farily long ranges and to a certain excent Relikt ERA at lest at closer ranges. Id T90 would have a harder time killing the current service abrams. NOt to mention comapratively T90 is not surviable like the Abrams due to ammuntion placement ( crew is surrounded by ammo) whereas in the Abrams ammuntion is in a seperate Area and has blowout panels if ammunition is stuck to direct flames upwards and prevent a Catastrophic explosion from, therefore allowing the crew to survive.

You do realise the game is not that real actually.So i am sure the developers would not make them that good in game.

Many of the older version tanks have different add-on’s like rubber skirts taken from the conveyer belts from coal mines (first used in Yugoslavia war,and Kosovo war by Serbian forces) many times when shoot from a far away with RPG type weapons the rubber thicknes actually made the rocket deflect or ricochet off the tank.

There is also reactive armour against rockets and AT shells and so on,not to mention the procentige of ricochet shells hiting the tenk on an angle.

 

And the thing you need to know about the Russian type of tanks especcially the T-72,T-90 and Serbian M-84 is that crew can chose if thy want to store the exstra ammo in the back of the turret as most of them would never load the ammo there in the real conflict as the ammo space in the turret is just for extra shells.Most of the tanks of that type have ammo stored in the bottom of the tank below the auto loader.

 

Adding tanks in this game of ours will be difficult since you will always have some players that are not happy with how thy made that or made this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kev2go said:

better question is how realistically Dev team will model the Armor.

 

Essnetially anything with Plain steel ( Like T55/T62 tanks that a Insurgent group would get)  are very vulnerable and uprotected to Cemical energy muntions, meaning the most basic RPG7 , LAW  would cut through them like a Hot knife through butter.

 

ID say Milita Might have more modern tanks like Former Warpact Liscense Built T72M/M1 tanks. These Have Composite layers ( Turret has Cast steel with Quartz Filling, and Hull are Steel plates with Plexiglass sandwitched in between)  and thus are much better protected against CE munitions from Portable ( Frontally) and would require Side or Rear shots with RPG's or Laws to killl  but Modern TOW would still get through them. and itsArmor entirely Ineffective compared to the ammunition of modern MBT's. Of other factions.

 

 

Then OFC Modern army tanks ID wager RUssia would get the T-90A ( or a T90M given the recent modernization) , and US faction the M1A2 SEP V2 abrams.

 

These would basically full frontally immune except for each others modern Kinetic Energy ammo (APFSDS) although here some balacing needed as Current M829A3 is quoted as being able to fully negate Kontact 5  , and thus Plink T90A's are farily long ranges and to a certain excent Relikt ERA at lest at closer ranges. Id T90 would have a harder time killing the current service abrams. NOt to mention comapratively T90 is not surviable like the Abrams due to ammuntion placement ( crew is surrounded by ammo) whereas in the Abrams ammuntion is in a seperate Area and has blowout panels if ammunition is stuck to direct flames upwards and prevent a Catastrophic explosion from, therefore allowing the crew to survive.

The amount of knowledge you have about the topic is fascinating really .... But modeling armour so accurately would be cool for people who understand the whole concept , but i think that for most people , and to make it easier for devs and escpically modders.... A simple locational armour system , with modern tanks maybe having abit less weak points or maybe more "HP" would be better .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, L0cation said:

The amount of knowledge you have about the topic is fascinating really .... But modeling armour so accurately would be cool for people who understand the whole concept , but i think that for most people , and to make it easier for devs and escpically modders.... A simple locational armour system , with modern tanks maybe having abit less weak points or maybe more "HP" would be better .

perhaps yeah it would be simpler. But in essense Modern MBT should be super tough to frontally kill ( ie enough RPG or tow spam will kill it) but to encourage players to amkbush tanks fro mthe side or Rear to kill them where they are weaker.

 

There is also the prosect of Fire control. Modern tanks like the Abrams have a Full digtal Ballistic computing. They are Laze and blaze tank ( point and click almost)

 

Essentially all a gunner has to do is point, Laze ( range return for distance) and the Fire Contro lcomputers all adjust for Distance,. Gun barrel electaion, Crosswinds,  and Lead if nessary for a moving target.

 

Old tanks like the T55 T62 ( unl,ess modernized) dont have any form of fire control.

 

 

FaKyEFF.png

 

 

They have sighting systems like Ww2 tanks. ( estimate range) and adjust the sight for distance based on ammo type. IF its a moving target, you have to estimate the range essentially with Personal Intuition. ( GL here mate lol) 

 

 

.But the biggest advtange of Modern tanks will be Thermal Imaging Sights which can be used both day and night. So spotting targets is easy. basic tanks like the T55/T62, and even T72 only have IR based night  vision sights. 

 

That being while i understand HP thing for balance of Armor, and simplicity for immersion id still like to see fully realistic Armored vehicle interiors for respective crew positions

 

 

 

 

 

 

. REd  Orchestra was centered around Infantry but still had a immersive tanking experiencing. It was almost on par with a Tank sim. ( of Gun ballistics and Armor werent exactly to stat, and were changed for balance, they bounced alot more than they should)

 

 

 

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This guys comments would be largely representative of any casual player trying Gunnery as an Insrugent in a T62

 

 

Better gun than a T55 but the  fatal flaw you cant see where the round goes. because in the T62 the Gun IS Disabled from rotating and elevated upwards ( initiated by Loader) to make loading a shell easier. during the loading process.

 

 

 

Plus 12-16 second long reload rates.

 

 

 

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kev2go said:

perhaps yeah it would be simpler. But in essense Modern MBT should be super tough to frontally kill ( ie enough RPG or tow spam will kill it) but to encourage players to amkbush tanks fro mthe side or Rear to kill them where they are weaker.

 

There is also the prosect of Fire control. Modern tanks like the Abrams have a Full digtal Ballistic computing. They are Laze and blaze tank ( point and click almost)

 

Essentially all a gunner has to do is point, Laze ( range return for distance) and the Fire Contro lcomputers all adjust for Distance,. Gun barrel electaion, Crosswinds,  and Lead if nessary for a moving target.

 

Old tanks like the T55 T62 ( unl,ess modernized) dont have any form of fire control.

 

 

FaKyEFF.png

 

 

They have sighting systems like Ww2 tanks. ( estimate range) and adjust the sight for distance based on ammo type. IF its a moving target, you have to estimate the range essentially with Personal Intuition. ( GL here mate lol) 

 

 

.But the biggest advtange of Modern tanks will be Thermal Imaging Sights which can be used both day and night. So spotting targets is easy. basic tanks like the T55/T62, and even T72 only have IR based night  vision sights. 

 

That being while i understand HP thing for balance of Armor, and simplicity for immersion id still like to see fully realistic Armored vehicle interiors for respective crew positions

 

 

 

 

 

 

. REd  Orchestra was centered around Infantry but still had a immersive tanking experiencing. It was almost on par with a Tank sim. ( of Gun ballistics and Armor werent exactly to stat, and were changed for balance, they bounced alot more than they should)

 

 

 

Roof punching tow's 2b however, can defeat Armour from the front by punching downwards through the roof. Might consider putting a few of those in the game for balance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with designed interior of vehicles. Like Red orchestra. In red orchestra I feel I get inside the tank, whereas in Squad I feel I BECOME the tank. I wish that could be incorporated in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, kev2go said:

This guys comments would be largely representative of any casual player trying Gunnery as an Insrugent in a T62

 

 

Better gun than a T55 but the  fatal flaw you cant see where the round goes. because in the T62 the Gun IS Disabled from rotating and elevated upwards ( initiated by Loader) to make loading a shell easier. during the loading process.

 

 

 

Plus 12-16 second long reload rates.

 

 

 

Well its not actually a fatal flaw buddy as you have two guys that can actually look where the shell is going (commander,driver) .

I dont actually think that the gunner sights goes up with the gun it self.

Why dose the gun go up in the first place is becouse it needs +3,5 degrees up elevation for the automatic casing ejection that can be disabled in the turret it self by the loader.

And a good crew can shoot 9 shell is a minute just so you know.

 

The thing is i would love to know if the developers are getting tanks in this game of ours would there be 4 crew positions inside (Driver,gunner,loader,commander) as the older ones the T-55,T-62 and the American M1A2 Abrams dont have autoloader systems in and need to have a loader inside that would be fun you just chilling inside waiting to i guess hit R button for the reload action when your gunner fires now that would be cool.

Edited by Bahrein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Bahrein said:

Well its not actually a fatal flaw buddy as you have two guys that can actually look where the shell is going (commander,driver) .

that's still a disadvantage as in other tanks the gunner doesn't need other crew to tell him where the shot landed. he can see for himself and if missed continue to track a moving target through the sight. 

 

trust me this is still a drawback. even us army tradoc document on the captured t62. as well as educational video stresses this point in comparison to their servce mbt at the time ( the m60a1)

Quote

I dont actually think that the gunner sights goes up with the gun it self.

Why dose the gun go up in the first place is becouse it needs +3,5 degrees up elevation for the automatic casing ejection that can be disabled in the turret it self by the loader.

exactly but it isn't disabled because it's against sop protocol.

 

The loader does it for both safety reasons and ease of loading. ( looking at longer loading times)

Quote

And a good crew can shoot 9 shell is a minute just so you know.

 

yes and if you do the math 9 shells per minute amounts to 15 second reload  ( i mentioned 12 - 16 seconds)

 

 12 seconds per shot  is the max  ( absolute optimistic) achievable  according to what I've read but of course lime you say the 9 rpm ( 15 seconds) is probably the more common sustained #.

 

Quote

 

The thing is i would love to know if the developers are getting tanks in this game of ours would there be 4 crew positions inside (Driver,gunner,loader,commander) as the older ones the T-55,T-62 and the American M1A2 Abrams dont have autoloader systems in and need to have a loader inside that would be fun you just chilling inside waiting to i guess hit R button for the reload action when your gunner fires now that would be cool.

that Not exaclty disadvantage   not having an autoloader , although it depnds on the tank.

The slowest load time for m1 gunners to qualify is 7 seconds if they get just a millsecond. over that is a no go and they don'. get that mos slot.  that's only for a recruit loader.

 

Russian tank autoloader take between 7-8 seconds to reload. longer if the carosel as to shuffle because another ammo type is selected

 

 

average speed for m1 loader is 5 seconds per shot and is expected to be the sustianed rof. And a really good crewman will be able to achieve in 3 seconds. ( no this isn't a myth)

 

Unless a loader via in game would be afk . any time a co or gunner request a reload it should be instantaneus. I mean how hard would it be.a player in  loader  position sitting and pressing a button to watch a reload animation process. not hard. from a game point of view. if anything a dull but important job.

 

 

Although for tanks like Abrams  or t55/t62 loaders could also fulfill a second role of machine gunner as those tanks can have mac hine gun mounts on the exterior just above the hatch.

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, kev2go said:

that's still a disadvantage as in other tanks the gunner doesn't need other crew to tell him where the shot landed. he can see for himself and if missed continue to track a moving target through the sight. 

 

trust me this is still a drawback. even us army tradoc document on the captured t62. as well as educational video stresses this point in comparison to their servce mbt at the time ( the m60a1)

exactly but it isn't disabled because it's against sop protocol.

 

The loader does it for both safety reasons and ease of loading. ( looking at longer loading times)

 

yes and if you do the math 9 shells per minute amounts to 15 second reload  ( i mentioned 12 - 16 seconds)

 

 12 seconds per shot  is the max  ( absolute optimistic) achievable  according to what I've read but of course lime you say the 9 rpm ( 15 seconds) is probably the more common sustained #.

 

that Not exaclty disadvantage   not having an autoloader , although it depnds on the tank.

The slowest load time for m1 gunners to qualify is 7 seconds if they get just a millsecond. over that is a no go and they don'. get that mos slot.  that's only for a recruit loader.

 

Russian tank autoloader take between 7-8 seconds to reload. longer if the carosel as to shuffle because another ammo type is selected

 

 

average speed for m1 loader is 5 seconds per shot and is expected to be the sustianed rof. And a really good crewman will be able to achieve in 3 seconds. ( no this isn't a myth)

 

Unless a loader via in game would be afk . any time a co or gunner request a reload it should be instantaneus. I mean how hard would it be.a player in  loader  position sitting and pressing a button to watch a reload animation process. not hard. from a game point of view. if anything a dull but important job.

 

 

Although for tanks like Abrams  or t55/t62 loaders could also fulfill a second role of machine gunner as those tanks can have mac hine gun mounts on the exterior just above the hatch.

Its really interesting and cool to talk with you in this manner and confront our opinions.

 

First of all i still do not believe that when you shoot out of T-62 that the gunner sights go up with the gun its just retarded (if the Russians have it like that in real life)

Second if the gun goes up to eject the used casing out for the reload its not that bad actually as long as the sights dose not go up with it.BTR i know needs to put his gun up to the max for a reload.

 

As far as autoloader i have read a lot about it and so on.I do personally think autoloader are far better then a human loader.

And with the human loader you say in the M1 its 5 seconds to 7per a shot i do think thous messurmants are made when the tank is staying still becouse i have seen some videos and its hard for a human loader to reload when the tank is on the move i saw some videos where thy are tossed around the turret.

While the auto loader dose not,it keeps reloading and with Russian tanks you can fire while in full speed.

But this is just my opinion when it comes to autoloader vs human loader.

 

If the Developers put tanks in the loader needs to be a player reloading if the real tank has a loader even if he needs to watch some animation as you say it is dull but important position and yes he dose have a coaxial machine gun mount that he can use.

Its going to be really interesting to see what thy plan to put in.

It would be even better if the Developers would give us some info of what thy plan about this topic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Bahrein said:

Its really interesting and cool to talk with you in this manner and confront our opinions.

 

First of all i still do not believe that when you shoot out of T-62 that the gunner sights go up with the gun its just retarded (if the Russians have it like that in real life)

Second if the gun goes up to eject the used casing out for the reload its not that bad actually as long as the sights dose not go up with it.BTR i know needs to put his gun up to the max for a reload.

 

As far as autoloader i have read a lot about it and so on.I do personally think autoloader are far better then a human loader.

And with the human loader you say in the M1 its 5 seconds to 7per a shot i do think thous messurmants are made when the tank is staying still becouse i have seen some videos and its hard for a human loader to reload when the tank is on the move i saw some videos where thy are tossed around the turret.

While the auto loader dose not,it keeps reloading and with Russian tanks you can fire while in full speed.

But this is just my opinion when it comes to autoloader vs human loader.

 

If the Developers put tanks in the loader needs to be a player reloading if the real tank has a loader even if he needs to watch some animation as you say it is dull but important position and yes he dose have a coaxial machine gun mount that he can use.

Its going to be really interesting to see what thy plan to put in.

It would be even better if the Developers would give us some info of what thy plan about this topic.

 

Normally the sights are not fixed to the cannon but instead using mirrors and stuff like that. At least for non-ancient stuff. Don't know about the t-62 but I seriously doubt the sights would go up. It's true the cannon goes up though for most tanks though. Auto-loaders can be fast like 3 sec sometimes but are prone to jamming, but another bigger reason to not put them in is because you really need a crew of 4 people to operate a tank properly with all repairs and stuff that may need to be done anyway . 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×