Jump to content
Caliell

DEVELOPERS PLEASE HUMBLY READ MY SUGGESTION FOR TANKS!

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Maybe you guys already have it in works, but I humbly want to suggest for you an idea how to make "4 crew Abrams M1A1" work. 

 

I believe having 4 crew Abrams is not only possible but should be in the game. How and why? Simply due to the fact that Loader's hatch on M1A1 by default comes with its own machine gun mount of 240B and gun shield. 

 

Game wise this means triple of independent firepower. So the loader in M1A1 will not be useless player, sitting in the buttoned up turret, but act as independent extra force multiplier besides Tank Commander's CROWS and the gunner. Imagine the amount of firepower this can lay. 


And perhaps having that "Extra M240B gunner" i.e. loader this will provide "Passive haste Bonus" for M1A1 like "20% reduction in loading time" for the main cannon.

 

T72B3 should obviously already come with such bonus due to autoloader, but because it does not have the hatch for extra "Light version of gunner" it will not have 3 independent weapon hardpoints on it. 

 

So looking at it game wise, you have two different player doctrines closely following to real life ones. - T72B3 trying to put out superior Main Cannon/Coax firepower, while M1A1 trying to put out superior independent firepower.

 

Just add another perhaps unpopular opinion. Rebel factions should be getting subpar but less costly in tickets versions of their own (Rebels factory stock T72 with no upgrades) and Insurgents T-54/55 and in larger numbers. Likely being half the ticket loss when combat destroyed in comparison to T72B3 and M1A1 tanks.

 

This way, Insurgents and Rebels will have realistically access to worse technology as they are supposed to, but also in the way better because they can field more of those tanks without fearing huge ticket drains. Think about it. - Two T54/55s or two Cold War Era T72s  for the cost of One M1A1. That's the whopping crew of 2 tanks vs 1 and should be interesting like WWII era tank duels of Shermans vs Tiger or Panther. One superior tank but can be overcame with good planning or outgunned based on player's skill.

 

This will be game level of the recent tank movie with Brad Pitt "Fury" levels.

Edited by Caliell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You sir have ......Tank Fever!  carry on...get r done.

977e7053be8ad0f0b3b5e6d438c0de21.jpg

Edited by XRobinson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes, indeed good Sir. Yes, indeed. Forgot to add that crew members just like in current Post Scriptum should have access to repair wrench and be able to do field emergency repairs of the disabled systems (but not actually "Heal" the tank). So if there is mobility kill, crew members will have to get out, repair the tracks or disabled turret and head for repair station.

Edited by Caliell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen the loader position suggested before but it always sounded like the most boring role in the world in those other suggestions because it was never optional.

 

What you've suggested sounds much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems like the most reasonable idea so far at least in my mind when it comes to realism and having that fun unique style that provide something other than copy and paste of the opposite force's tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We where discusing about tanks in a couple of forum topics.I personally was hoping someones of the developers would join us and talk about plans and so on but nothing.

I must say i agree with everything you wrote on here.

A loader position for the Abrams is a must since that tank dose not have the autoloader system.It would be more realistic.

Also the T-55,T-62 do not have an auto loader system and there for a loader player is a must have as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if we do have a loader how would it work? is it automatic or do you actually have to do something?

Share this post


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

if we do have a loader how would it work? is it automatic or do you actually have to do something?

 

I am hoping as my original post they will take this suggestion to the heart and make autoloader as the active "Tertiary Gunner" position with 240B machine gun with ballistic shield or Gunner's basket just like TUSK version of Abrams have. That way loader will not be useless dead weight. 

 

Depending on the balance issues with the game, this position should offer Passive haste bonus for loading and/or reloading (when switching ordinance types) when the loader is present in his/her turret.

 

 

4 hours ago, Bahrein said:

We where discusing about tanks in a couple of forum topics.I personally was hoping someones of the developers would join us and talk about plans and so on but nothing.

I must say i agree with everything you wrote on here.

A loader position for the Abrams is a must since that tank dose not have the autoloader system.It would be more realistic.

Also the T-55,T-62 do not have an auto loader system and there for a loader player is a must have as well.

 

 

 

Perhaps factory stock T 72 or even T 80s could suffice to make it fair. Those tanks are easier to destroy and they are appropriate as "Trophy Tanks" for Insurgents and Rebels, but obviously at the cost of lower ticket value.

 

That could be realistic, just think about the expense of losing in real life Abrams to catastrophic kill in comparison to even two cheaply made T 72s or T 80s.

Edited by Caliell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider it read. =)

 

I believe the designers are currently thinking a tank will be usable with two people, but will never be as good as run with three. (Driver, Gunner, and Commander.) As it's still being designed, it's a great time for feedback like this. I know they are concerned with taking too many infantry off the front lines in the long-term, and vehicle seats play a big role in that (both for transport and when people are filling an active slot), so they are approaching it care. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. =)

 

(Edit: Some of those thoughts should be surfacing shortly; it came up some over a feedback session this weekend. Still transcribing.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thank you. Here is the big thing that I noticed in games like Squad, Post Scriptum, old school Planetside 1, Red Orchestra. - Everyone to one degree or the other wants to feel "useful" in the game match and not as bored deadweight. Obviously dead weight loader is good example of it, but at the same time it is simply unrealistic (in the way unfair treatment for the much venerable US Abrams) to have only the crew 2, when the game could be coded with relative ease to have everyone in the crew contribute (and therefore feel useful) for 3 gunner positions. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#/media/File:Abrams-transparent.png

 

Notice how well this could be set up. Loader acting as the gunner covering the left 180 Degrees of M1A1 and Commander's CROWS the right side and at the same time having no compromise on the hunter/killer ability. Obviously the gunner is in his/her own world with that coaxial and the main cannon.

 

I one of the few who prefers to play as either vehicle gunner/driver, or as medic (don't know why since I was former medic in US Army and should be "mediced out"). This is where I think also to add that drivers need to have some kind of game score added to them as well. Seems a bit unfair that someone does the critical key job of positioning, dodging all those incoming missiles, maneuvering on enemy positions, vehicles, and infantry to get no reward for it. Because of this I believe Driver is essential position in Squad as much as many players and developers may disagree. Here is quote from my TC when I was 19D in the Army. "Driver is the most important position in every single military vehicle because of his or her actions, it is he/she who decides if the vehicle will fight well or die." 

 

-As mentioned because of this, I believe Squad needs to also give kills or "Assist kill count" in the post match score board for drivers just like in real life, when a tank makes the kill notch on their vehicle, it is awarded for entire crew of the vehicle and not just the gunner.

1 hour ago, Gatzby said:

Consider it read. =)

 

I believe the designers are currently thinking a tank will be usable with two people, but will never be as good as run with three. (Driver, Gunner, and Commander.) As it's still being designed, it's a great time for feedback like this. I know they are concerned with taking too many infantry off the front lines in the long-term, and vehicle seats play a big role in that (both for transport and when people are filling an active slot), so they are approaching it care. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. =)

 

(Edit: Some of those thoughts should be surfacing shortly; it came up some over a feedback session this weekend. Still transcribing.)

 

Edited by Caliell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-06-10 at 1:13 AM, Caliell said:

Maybe you guys already have it in works, but I humbly want to suggest for you an idea how to make "4 crew Abrams M1A1" work. 

 

I believe having 4 crew Abrams is not only possible but should be in the game. How and why? Simply due to the fact that Loader's hatch on M1A1 by default comes with its own machine gun mount of 240B and gun shield. 

 

Game wise this means triple of independent firepower. So the loader in M1A1 will not be useless player, sitting in the buttoned up turret, but act as independent extra force multiplier besides Tank Commander's CROWS and the gunner. Imagine the amount of firepower this can lay. 


And perhaps having that "Extra M240B gunner" i.e. loader this will provide "Passive haste Bonus" for M1A1 like "20% reduction in loading time" for the main cannon.

 

T72B3 should obviously already come with such bonus due to autoloader, but because it does not have the hatch for extra "Light version of gunner" it will not have 3 independent weapon hardpoints on it. 

 

So looking at it game wise, you have two different player doctrines closely following to real life ones. - T72B3 trying to put out superior Main Cannon/Coax firepower, while M1A1 trying to put out superior independent firepower.

 

Just add another perhaps unpopular opinion. Rebel factions should be getting subpar but less costly in tickets versions of their own (Rebels factory stock T72 with no upgrades) and Insurgents T-54/55 and in larger numbers. Likely being half the ticket loss when combat destroyed in comparison to T72B3 and M1A1 tanks.

 

This way, Insurgents and Rebels will have realistically access to worse technology as they are supposed to, but also in the way better because they can field more of those tanks without fearing huge ticket drains. Think about it. - Two T54/55s or two Cold War Era T72s  for the cost of One M1A1. That's the whopping crew of 2 tanks vs 1 and should be interesting like WWII era tank duels of Shermans vs Tiger or Panther. One superior tank but can be overcame with good planning or outgunned based on player's skill.

 

This will be game level of the recent tank movie with Brad Pitt "Fury" levels.

Fury was like the worst tank movie ever. No offense.... 4 sole dudes in a crappy sherman with 300 Germans lurking around in the night. Of course Brad would win. Totally unrealistic movie. 

 

Your suggestions though are not half bad, but I think they are already planning something along like this. Might be wrong though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Fury was like the worst tank movie ever. No offense.... 4 sole dudes in a crappy sherman with 300 Germans lurking around in the night. Of course Brad would win. Totally unrealistic movie. 

 

Your suggestions though are not half bad, but I think they are already planning something along like this. Might be wrong though. 

Hahaha hell yeah.

Trust me thous bunch of tanks would have been dead in real life long before thy actually had a clue where the Tiger was firing from.

 

16 hours ago, Gatzby said:

Consider it read. =)

 

I believe the designers are currently thinking a tank will be usable with two people, but will never be as good as run with three. (Driver, Gunner, and Commander.) As it's still being designed, it's a great time for feedback like this. I know they are concerned with taking too many infantry off the front lines in the long-term, and vehicle seats play a big role in that (both for transport and when people are filling an active slot), so they are approaching it care. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. =)

 

(Edit: Some of those thoughts should be surfacing shortly; it came up some over a feedback session this weekend. Still transcribing.)

I am glad you joined us on here.

I personally think that tank crew needs to be a realistic part in this game of ours i do think that a loader in the Abrams is needed and a must have now will you let him be able to shoot the mg or not is not that important even if you make the reload option for the loader to be just some animation and sound it would look good and be good.

As i wrote many times ago i would love to see other tanks in game too like T-55,T-62,T-72 just because diversity.This tanks also would need to have a loader sit in the tank all except T-72 it has an autoloader.

 

Now as far as 4 man crew would be costly for the team yes it would but thats why the guys using the tank would need to know what thy are doing and if a crew is good it can do a lot more damage to the enemy then if the 4 guys where on foot dying a lot and so on.Its like with the medics you need two of them in your team dont you but its not the point to just have two random guys beeing a medic and staying back and healing them selfs,you need a real agressive combat medics that will run around in the hail of bullets getting all the friendlies up.

Its just cost that with a capable 4 guys or 3 for the Russian T-72B3 would be worth it.

 

The two guys would not be good becouse it would not be as realistic or as effective.

As in the BTR-s and BRDM you have 3 guys driver,gunner,commander and commander hase his own periscope with whic he can look at the back or other sides while driver looks at front and gunner so thy now have better situation awearnes then before.

 

And we still dont have separate mic system for people in the IFV.

 

Its my suggestons but basically its all about you developers and what you will choose to do.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the well put together post.

 

I too would like to see eventually a Loader M240 on the Abrams, but I don't think we will ever make the Commander or Loader position mandatory in order for the vehicle to function, just giving it more effectiveness.

 

Part of it comes down to - how large do we want the tank battles? 3 tanks vs 3 tanks with a 3 man crew each is 9 players vs 9 players... Add in an IFV or two and a couple APCs, a couple Logistics Trucks and a couple transport helicopters, and now we have about 20 players in vehicles, which is about the upper prefered range in a 50v50 scenario, as we always want there to be more infantry than vehicles.

 

So with tanks requiring 4 (or 3) players, that really locks in the vehicle to infantry ratio, and then we may have to force less tanks, so 2v2 instead of 3v3. 

 

Tanks are going to be pretty awesome and will continue to be refined just like all the other systems.

Share this post


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

Hahaha hell yeah.

Trust me thous bunch of tanks would have been dead in real life long before thy actually had a clue where the Tiger was firing from.

 

I am glad you joined us on here.

I personally think that tank crew needs to be a realistic part in this game of ours i do think that a loader in the Abrams is needed and a must have now will you let him be able to shoot the mg or not is not that important even if you make the reload option for the loader to be just some animation and sound it would look good and be good.

As i wrote many times ago i would love to see other tanks in game too like T-55,T-62,T-72 just because diversity.This tanks also would need to have a loader sit in the tank all except T-72 it has an autoloader.

 

Now as far as 4 man crew would be costly for the team yes it would but thats why the guys using the tank would need to know what thy are doing and if a crew is good it can do a lot more damage to the enemy then if the 4 guys where on foot dying a lot and so on.Its like with the medics you need two of them in your team dont you but its not the point to just have two random guys beeing a medic and staying back and healing them selfs,you need a real agressive combat medics that will run around in the hail of bullets getting all the friendlies up.

Its just cost that with a capable 4 guys or 3 for the Russian T-72B3 would be worth it.

 

The two guys would not be good becouse it would not be as realistic or as effective.

As in the BTR-s and BRDM you have 3 guys driver,gunner,commander and commander hase his own periscope with whic he can look at the back or other sides while driver looks at front and gunner so thy now have better situation awearnes then before.

 

And we still dont have separate mic system for people in the IFV.

 

Its my suggestons but basically its all about you developers and what you will choose to do.

  

http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/the-death-of-michael-wittmann-panzer-ace/

 

History says that's exactly how tiger tanks were taken out.  Read what happened to Wittmann tank Ace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Fury was like the worst tank movie ever. No offense.... 4 sole dudes in a crappy sherman with 300 Germans lurking around in the night. Of course Brad would win. Totally unrealistic movie. 

 

Your suggestions though are not half bad, but I think they are already planning something along like this. Might be wrong though. 

If you notice or noticed that Community Manager replied to the topic and mentioned that they are currently designing the tanks to be 2 Man of Gunner combined with Driver and Tank Commander (both Abrams and T72B3), which is neither realistic nor I believe is fun since all it does is copying Battlefield 2 or Battlefield Series type of Tank Control and most of all believe it or not this actually makes tanks weaker. The larger the crew of the tank, the better the control of the tank.

 

Having what I suggested will add unique form of the tank crew that mimic closer to realistic tank crews while not taking away from the game in such way. 

 

In fact basically what I have suggested will create  mobile version of 240B machine gunner with ballistic shield besides Tank Commander's .50 Cal. 

 

Thus you will have possibly that dedicated squad that likes to get together just to run vehicles during matches.

 

4 Member squad of the tank crew. 3 Gunners, 1 driver for Abrams.

 

The critical note I'd like to add: In the current modern days that Squad is trying to follow, the tanks operate in Urban Combat way more than in conventional role of the spearhead of the conventional battle offensive. Most of the fights in Squad themselves are at intermediate to close range, even when it comes to vehicles.

 

Developers with the coming of tanks will possibly have to add the APC killer of MBTs though as well. - ATGM missiles currently missing on BTRs and BMPs such as Fagot and Sager.

 

Also need Brittish Jackal added into the game.

Edited by Caliell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, fuzzhead said:

Thanks for the well put together post.

 

I too would like to see eventually a Loader M240 on the Abrams, but I don't think we will ever make the Commander or Loader position mandatory in order for the vehicle to function, just giving it more effectiveness.

 

Part of it comes down to - how large do we want the tank battles? 3 tanks vs 3 tanks with a 3 man crew each is 9 players vs 9 players... Add in an IFV or two and a couple APCs, a couple Logistics Trucks and a couple transport helicopters, and now we have about 20 players in vehicles, which is about the upper prefered range in a 50v50 scenario, as we always want there to be more infantry than vehicles.

 

So with tanks requiring 4 (or 3) players, that really locks in the vehicle to infantry ratio, and then we may have to force less tanks, so 2v2 instead of 3v3. 

 

Tanks are going to be pretty awesome and will continue to be refined just like all the other systems.

 Fully Agree , maybe if somehow you would be able to make the servers contain 150 players , then we can start thinking about multicrew vehicles .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Caliell said:

If you notice or noticed that Community Manager replied to the topic and mentioned that they are currently designing the tanks to be 2 Man of Gunner combined with Driver and Tank Commander (both Abrams and T72B3), which is neither realistic nor I believe is fun since all it does is copying Battlefield 2 or Battlefield Series type of Tank Control and most of all believe it or not this actually makes tanks weaker. The larger the crew of the tank, the better the control of the tank.

 

...

That's not what Gatzby or Fuzzhead said.

 

On 6/12/2018 at 2:13 AM, Gatzby said:

...I believe the designers are currently thinking a tank will be usable with two people, but will never be as good as run with three...

 

15 hours ago, fuzzhead said:

...I too would like to see eventually a Loader M240 on the Abrams, but I don't think we will ever make the Commander or Loader position mandatory in order for the vehicle to function, just giving it more effectiveness...

 

So you still have the commander and even loader slot available but the tank is able to run without them, that's all. This way you can get more vehicles in play without increasing the player count.

 

I know some players are fine with sitting in a loader position doing nothing all day but the vast majority of players and myself would hate that. Having the loader as an optional crew slot that has a gun like with the Abrams is the best way to go about it. Remember, this isn't Steel Beasts, it's Squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 6:35 AM, fuzzhead said:

Thanks for the well put together post.

 

I too would like to see eventually a Loader M240 on the Abrams, but I don't think we will ever make the Commander or Loader position mandatory in order for the vehicle to function, just giving it more effectiveness.

 

Part of it comes down to - how large do we want the tank battles? 3 tanks vs 3 tanks with a 3 man crew each is 9 players vs 9 players... Add in an IFV or two and a couple APCs, a couple Logistics Trucks and a couple transport helicopters, and now we have about 20 players in vehicles, which is about the upper prefered range in a 50v50 scenario, as we always want there to be more infantry than vehicles.

 

So with tanks requiring 4 (or 3) players, that really locks in the vehicle to infantry ratio, and then we may have to force less tanks, so 2v2 instead of 3v3. 

 

Tanks are going to be pretty awesome and will continue to be refined just like all the other systems.

 

Well I basically suggested as such for the loader to be optional, yet at the same time useful addition to the Abrams tank crew. My suggestion in fact creates both optional, fun, and useful loader position while making Abrams closer to realistic variant.

 

However one thing to point out as player, and I have to assume the vast majority of players also presume that once Abrams will be in the game, the combat loss cost of such vehicle will be enormous. 

 

Notice the current trend with APCs. In majority of the matches they are not fully utilized due to squad leaders realizing that putting such vehicles in hazardous position could spell the end of the game match in favor of good, coordinated Anti Tank teams.  With recent TOW addition (and future Russian counterpart Kornet, I hope smoke grenades work against laser guidance though since that's what the smoke grenades are primary for), using armored vehicles for direct offensive action became extremely risky. 

 

This is no exception to tanks. Tanks are not invincible and if made realistic both Abrams and T72B3 have many weak points, especially some like T72 carousel basket that will send that turret fly sky high and Abrams' rear exhaust port that is pretty hefty target at the rear. 

 

If an Abrams destroyed will cost something of 50 or 75 tickets, I believe the "infantry problem population ratio lock" will solve itself. Abrams will become that alternative option that will be akin to Texas Hold Em Up "All in" move. - Extremely high risk for extremely high reward. As in this will become not "the go to at the beginning of the match" option, thus everyone and their mother will not run for Abrams (except highly likely experienced veteran vehicle crews), but squad leaders will have to think twice and use Abrams sparingly and will prefer to go with your Bread and Butter Trooper Transport/Logi and Walk for the most part or the most matches.

Edited by Caliell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember: Commander seat is practically another gunner. It can override the gunner and fire at things the commander detects. That being said. Just be forced to sit there might be boring. But remember also. Commander is usually the one seat a tank can go without. Loader gunner and driver can get most of the job done without the commander. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Remember: Commander seat is practically another gunner. It can override the gunner and fire at things the commander detects. That being said. Just be forced to sit there might be boring. But remember also. Commander is usually the one seat a tank can go without. Loader gunner and driver can get most of the job done without the commander. 

Commander has other duties like being able to see the battlefield through a HUD?  Monitors position on integrated display?

 

https://science.howstuffworks.com/m1-tank5.htm

The commander oversees the tank's operation, communicates with other tank commanders and directs the rest of the crew. He has several periscopes and a joystick-controlled independent thermal night vision viewer to survey the battlefield. He can monitor the tank's various systems and its position on his integrated display.

The gunner targets enemy vehicles and bunkers and fires the main gun. He pinpoints targets using a stabilized sight, with day vision and thermal night vision capabilities, and a laser range-finder that precisely measures the distance to the target. He also controls the front machine gun and monitors the main gun's general condition.

The loader pulls rounds from the ammunition compartment and load them into the main gun. Generally, the gunner tells the loader which sort of round to load.

The loader and commander may also operate the two machine guns mounted on top of the turret. On the M1A2, they have to open the tank's two hatches and fire the guns manually, so it's not a viable option in a tank battle. The machine guns are mainly for attacking infantry soldiers.

All of the M1s on the battlefield are linked together by the inter-vehicle information system (IVIS). Using IVIS, commanders keep track of the other tanks' positions, transmit maps and share information about the enemy. In order to hide communications from the enemy, the system uses encrypted radio signals.

The combination of these advanced electronics, incredibly strong armor and massive firepower make the M1 an almost unbeatable opponent in tank warfare. But evolving technology will eventually surpass the M1, and the weapon will take its place alongside the dozens of other tanks that have come and gone over the years. In the world of military science, technological superiority has a short life span.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, XRobinson said:

Commander has other duties like being able to see the battlefield through a HUD?  Monitors position on integrated display?

 

https://science.howstuffworks.com/m1-tank5.htm

The commander oversees the tank's operation, communicates with other tank commanders and directs the rest of the crew. He has several periscopes and a joystick-controlled independent thermal night vision viewer to survey the battlefield. He can monitor the tank's various systems and its position on his integrated display.

The gunner targets enemy vehicles and bunkers and fires the main gun. He pinpoints targets using a stabilized sight, with day vision and thermal night vision capabilities, and a laser range-finder that precisely measures the distance to the target. He also controls the front machine gun and monitors the main gun's general condition.

The loader pulls rounds from the ammunition compartment and load them into the main gun. Generally, the gunner tells the loader which sort of round to load.

The loader and commander may also operate the two machine guns mounted on top of the turret. On the M1A2, they have to open the tank's two hatches and fire the guns manually, so it's not a viable option in a tank battle. The machine guns are mainly for attacking infantry soldiers.

All of the M1s on the battlefield are linked together by the inter-vehicle information system (IVIS). Using IVIS, commanders keep track of the other tanks' positions, transmit maps and share information about the enemy. In order to hide communications from the enemy, the system uses encrypted radio signals.

The combination of these advanced electronics, incredibly strong armor and massive firepower make the M1 an almost unbeatable opponent in tank warfare. But evolving technology will eventually surpass the M1, and the weapon will take its place alongside the dozens of other tanks that have come and gone over the years. In the world of military science, technological superiority has a short life span.

 

Most of the parts are true, but some are false. For example "manual fire" of commander's .50 Cal is no longer done manually. Most of the tanks had been upgraded with CROWs system you see on Stryker in game (real life CROWs have thermal and infrared night vision systems on it though). This is not M1A2 exclusive upgrade and neither is modern ballistic gunner's shield for Loader's side 240B. In fact when I was in Iraq, most of additions to the turrets we had on vehicles, such as Humvees, Abrams, and yes armored LMTVs and 5 tons (Uparmored version of Logistics truck you see in game with the gun mounted on the top of its roof) was done by hand with armor and turret kits sent to either mechanics or operators. 

 

I had to wield "Hillbilly Armor" myself.

 

This is another strength of M1 series in a way just like T72 series. - It is extremely modular chassis system. CROWs and Ballistic shield/Gunner's Basket are not series exclusive. Its just some versions are better equipped or designed for better performance under certain conditions such as M1A2 TUSK version of Abrams that is equipped with CROWs, Gunner's basket for loader, Bird Cage at the rear, ERA armor on the sides, possibly that not so secret anymore DUKE (we dont talk about it), with Battle Network a.k.a. INVIS.

Edited by Caliell

Share this post


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

Commander has other duties like being able to see the battlefield through a HUD?  Monitors position on integrated display?

 

https://science.howstuffworks.com/m1-tank5.htm

The commander oversees the tank's operation, communicates with other tank commanders and directs the rest of the crew. He has several periscopes and a joystick-controlled independent thermal night vision viewer to survey the battlefield. He can monitor the tank's various systems and its position on his integrated display.

The gunner targets enemy vehicles and bunkers and fires the main gun. He pinpoints targets using a stabilized sight, with day vision and thermal night vision capabilities, and a laser range-finder that precisely measures the distance to the target. He also controls the front machine gun and monitors the main gun's general condition.

The loader pulls rounds from the ammunition compartment and load them into the main gun. Generally, the gunner tells the loader which sort of round to load.

The loader and commander may also operate the two machine guns mounted on top of the turret. On the M1A2, they have to open the tank's two hatches and fire the guns manually, so it's not a viable option in a tank battle. The machine guns are mainly for attacking infantry soldiers.

All of the M1s on the battlefield are linked together by the inter-vehicle information system (IVIS). Using IVIS, commanders keep track of the other tanks' positions, transmit maps and share information about the enemy. In order to hide communications from the enemy, the system uses encrypted radio signals.

The combination of these advanced electronics, incredibly strong armor and massive firepower make the M1 an almost unbeatable opponent in tank warfare. But evolving technology will eventually surpass the M1, and the weapon will take its place alongside the dozens of other tanks that have come and gone over the years. In the world of military science, technological superiority has a short life span.

Sure. Just saying that if you want to run and gun a little then commander is not a critical position. Although of course, they wouldn't have put him in unless he would have been important in other ways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2018 at 6:47 AM, Stom said:

That's not what Gatzby or Fuzzhead said.

 

 

 

So you still have the commander and even loader slot available but the tank is able to run without them, that's all. This way you can get more vehicles in play without increasing the player count.

 

I know some players are fine with sitting in a loader position doing nothing all day but the vast majority of players and myself would hate that. Having the loader as an optional crew slot that has a gun like with the Abrams is the best way to go about it. Remember, this isn't Steel Beasts, it's Squad.

As far as i know squad is a game thats going for realistic stuff not arcade type of gameplay like CoD or BF.

If you would hate to be a loader then be something else or dont even be in the Abrams bi in the real tank T-72B3.

Its like a sacrifice no one wants to be a medic or an SL but its a must have and someone has to be it.

For me it would not be a problem i could be a loader all day long i am sure it would be fun especially when the tank goes boom and you get instantly in the main spawn screen as you got instantly dead ;-)  

 

I personally play with a Ukrainian gamning community that has aprox 20 players in squad,sometimes we manage to have 3full squads in a game its a huge amount of fun.So having a guy to be a loader is not a problem at all.

 

I am glad to see most of guys here are for a loader place in a tank and that makes me happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bahrein said:

As far as i know squad is a game thats going for realistic stuff not arcade type of gameplay like CoD or BF.

If you would hate to be a loader then be something else or dont even be in the Abrams bi in the real tank T-72B3.

Its like a sacrifice no one wants to be a medic or an SL but its a must have and someone has to be it.

For me it would not be a problem i could be a loader all day long i am sure it would be fun especially when the tank goes boom and you get instantly in the main spawn screen as you got instantly dead ;-)  

 

I personally play with a Ukrainian gamning community that has aprox 20 players in squad,sometimes we manage to have 3full squads in a game its a huge amount of fun.So having a guy to be a loader is not a problem at all.

 

I am glad to see most of guys here are for a loader place in a tank and that makes me happy.

 

SLs and Medics have agency, but if you're a 'realistic' loader you can't really do anything apart from a repetitive action.

 

I enjoy vehicle combat and have been excited about MBTs since the kickstarter, especially the older ones like T-55s, but I really don't understand the obsession with a realistic loader position. I guess I just see the loader as a non-player entity that exists inside the tank since they have no impact outside of the vehicle so I don't see why you would subject yourself or any other player to the slot.

 

I liked the original suggestion because it was that the loader should be an optional slot on the Abrams since it has a dedicated hatch gun.

 

If there's something I'm missing tell me but apart from it being realistic why do you want a loader position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stom said:

 

SLs and Medics have agency, but if you're a 'realistic' loader you can't really do anything apart from a repetitive action.

 

I enjoy vehicle combat and have been excited about MBTs since the kickstarter, especially the older ones like T-55s, but I really don't understand the obsession with a realistic loader position. I guess I just see the loader as a non-player entity that exists inside the tank since they have no impact outside of the vehicle so I don't see why you would subject yourself or any other player to the slot.

 

I liked the original suggestion because it was that the loader should be an optional slot on the Abrams since it has a dedicated hatch gun.

 

If there's something I'm missing tell me but apart from it being realistic why do you want a loader position?

Because its realistic yes,on the other hand when thy implement module damage in game witch thy will at some point your loader can die from a hit to the tank and because it dose not have an auto loader system like the T-72.

There is nothing more i can say.You dont like it you dont think its cool for a player to be a loader and thats ok the developers probobly think that too.

I think its needed becaouse the real tanks have them and thy need them to operate non of the roles in the tank are useless or boring.

 

 

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

×