is it planned to let infantry ride tanks?

[professionalXMAZ]

played a big QB today as redfor and my dang dudes had to slog it over like at least half a mile, but i had plenty of tanks they could have ridden on.  Tell me it ain't so

[Combatintman]

2 hours ago, professionalXMAZ said:

played a big QB today as redfor and my dang dudes had to slog it over like at least half a mile, but i had plenty of tanks they could have ridden on.  Tell me it ain't so

I doubt it very much as tank riding is pretty rare in the modern era - sure somebody will come in here and post a picture to prove that somebody has done it but it is infrequent and extremely rare in combat and that is the main reason I think Battlefront opted not to make it a feature of the Shock Force upgrade to the latest engine.

Half a mile is also only a 5-7 minute walk so unless your scenario is 30 minutes or less, it shouldn't be that much of a drama to hoof them there. Of course it sucks if you're the guy carrying the GPMG and a few hundred rounds of link but then in CM you're never that guy so it doesn't matter so long as you keep on top of the unit's fatigue levels.

[sburke]

It is a lot of work to do models to allow for this so highly unlikely to see this done 

[Sublime]

+1 to the answers. Anti tank stuff wasnt as super deadly in WW2 and thw Russians even had dedicated tank riders. A lot different than modern times. Im sure its happened but by and large wouldnt, Im pretty sure in real life Syrian experience on both sides has been that their T series of tanks are fire magnets and it.d be suicide to ride in on them.

Id like to add the great majority of WW2 tanks had a lot weaker cannons as well that were less likely to rupture ear drums or other stuff if fired around friendlies. Contrast that to Pzsaurkrautwerfers comment that in Iraq US troops used the 3rd roadwheel back from the front as a rule of thumb how far you had to be away from the main gun when it fired to not have baddd side effects.

Finally they had half tracks but not completely covered IFVs in WW2 and thats the technical modern day solution if your willing to ride your guys mounted in. Theyre supposed to be shooting out of the gun ports on the sidea of bmps and bradleys (lol)

I wouldnt advise doing it though..

Edited January 8, 2019 by Sublime

[HunterGathers]

Indeed. If you're expecting contact of any kind your troops should be dismounted. It may seem crazy but your troops actually have a better chance of survival dismounted in a field than in the back of a vehicle or god forbid ontop of a tank. The only time I can see myself wanting to use a leo for transport would be if I'm trying to casevac a critically wounded casualty and I cant drag/carry him out of there. A lot of things since ww2 have changed. The way things were back then was very "from-the-hip" or ad-hoc. Most weapon systems were brand new and cutting edge technology for their nations at the time. Outside the Russian way of thinking, troops were only hitching rides on tanks as part of maneuvers, and dismounting prior to their lines of departure, especially since there may not be enough vehicles for all the infantry (combat losses, breakdowns, other shortages) The intensity levels of the wars being fought now don't really require Cpl Bloggins to hop on the side of a leo to the frontline.

[Sublime]

+1 again. Id add finally tbat seeing as how America uses DU and so does Russia; and knowing the combustable after armor effects of a DU round which makes an extremely ugly scenario SOME HOW EVEN MORE GRISLY. Id prolly never be convinced to get in an IFV in a combat zone. Youd have to drag me into a BMP especially at gunpoint

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, Sublime said:

Youd have to drag me into a BMP especially at gunpoint

LOL if you ever were in a unit equipped with BMPs I expect that could be arranged

[Sublime]

LOL fair nuff

[professionalXMAZ]

On 1/8/2019 at 9:56 AM, sburke said:

It is a lot of work to do models to allow for this so highly unlikely to see this done 

as a web dev by trade I'm curious - the engine is the same between red thunder and SF2 right? But the animations aren't transferrable between games? 

[sburke]

That is a battlefront discussion.  I can’t speak for them even if I had knowledge on it. For those two specific games they don’t share any vehicles so definitely not. 

Edited January 10, 2019 by sburke

[Mord]

Yeah, the placement would be completely off even if it worked. But it wouldn't.

 

Mord.

[MikeyD]

Quote

the engine is the same between red thunder and SF2 right? But the animations aren't transferrable between games? 

The engine is the same, the animations are mostly the same (where applicable), but vehicle models are specific to each title. Its the vehicle models than need to be manhandled to apply seating spots for soldiers. Its a time-consuming chore that would need to be done across dozens of different vehicles. Plus its worse when you're attempting to retcon old models made by another artist more than a decade ago. If tank riding was a very important aspect of Syrian theater combat BFC would've taken the trouble to do it. But its not so they didn't.

I agree that huge QB maps were not exactly made for walking, but neither were they made for tank riding when long range ATGMs, airstrikes and precision artillery are involved. Players who own CMFB and CMRT can tell you how often tank riding into combat happens during gameplay. They can also tell you how often they've lost entire squads with one shot while riding tanks.

[A Canadian Cat]

12 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Players who own CMFB and CMRT can tell you how often tank riding into combat happens during gameplay.

Well a little more than once   Doing so is costly but sometimes it is worth it. Just not often.

12 hours ago, MikeyD said:

They can also tell you how often they've lost entire squads with one shot while riding tanks. 

Frequently. I would consider that it will happen every time and use that to judge if it is worth it. Frequently it is not.

[Sublime]

Especially when we.re talking tank riding for the Syrians. Lets forget about tanks airpower and everything else. Just javelins. Almost never miss. The way theyre fired sometimes it literally just seems someone pointed a finger at the vehicle and it goes boom.  And at long range a jav team often can fire a few shots and not be spotted.  So you could be waaay back from the combat still with your reserve platoon saddled up trundling along at slow and wham. Explosion (cuz its a bmp) and entire squad plus ammo on vehicle and vehicle destroyed.  Even worse is when it happens 2 or 3 more times and you dont even have a ?

[HunterGathers]

speaking as a former infanteer, I'm all over any sort of vehicle I can throw all of my heavy **** into. My back loves LAV's

[Vet 0369]

4 hours ago, HunterGathers said:

speaking as a former infanteer, I'm all over any sort of vehicle I can throw all of my heavy **** into. My back loves LAV's

We have enough AFV's  so we don't have to ride on tanks. Even the Marine AAVs, as thin skinned as they are, in enough supply that infantry doesn't need to ride on a tank. Back in the day, my M2 60mm mortars would have been dropping rounds on and around the tanks. Not to hurt the tanks, but to take out the infantry. I wouldn't want to be anywhere a tank. It's just too dangerous.

[Cpl Steiner]

Russian troops did sometimes, perhaps even frequently, ride on the top of personnel carriers in a fairly recent conflict (Chechnya), presumably due to the threat of anti-vehicle mines. There are pictures of this if you search in Google.

Pretty sure these are Russians...

Edited January 15, 2019 by Cpl Steiner

[Vet 0369]

9 minutes ago, Cpl Steiner said:

Russian troops did sometimes, perhaps even frequently, ride on the top of personnel carriers in a fairly recent conflict (Chechnya), presumably due to the threat of anti-vehicle mines. There are pictures of this if you search in Google.

Pretty sure these are Russians...

Well, that type of movement would depend on what the commanding officer allowed, if he even knew. I think I could say with pretty much certainty, the U.S. Units would never allow their troops to be exposed to the possibility of fire in that way. Perhaps they had lost a number of vehicles. And the troop compartment was already full, or it has no troop compartment. It doesn't look like an infantry troop carrier. Maybe a recon vehicle or a fire support vehicle?

[Cpl Steiner]

36 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

Well, that type of movement would depend on what the commanding officer allowed, if he even knew. I think I could say with pretty much certainty, the U.S. Units would never allow their troops to be exposed to the possibility of fire in that way. Perhaps they had lost a number of vehicles. And the troop compartment was already full, or it has no troop compartment. It doesn't look like an infantry troop carrier. Maybe a recon vehicle or a fire support vehicle?

Pretty sure I watched a documentary during the Chechen war in which the embedded correspondent said the troops he was with were riding on top of the vehicle because of the threat of mines. I will see if I can find it.

[sburke]

Yeah you see that occasionally in Ukraine even showing vehicles that hit minds but losses were limited as they were all on the top deck. 

[MikeyD]

I recall reading Ukraine complained that their aging BTR-80s were porous to steel core 7.62 sniper rifle fire. It was dangerous to be in the vehicle. When they took delivery of ex-British Saxon armored trucks they marveled at the vehicle's ability to stand up to small arms fire. There's a WWII equivalent to this. American TD crews in Italy despised their new M18 Hellcats, some units actually reverted back to M10 before the war finished. Because Hellcat armor wasn't guaranteed to stand up to 7.92 mg fire.

If BFC were to do an occupation/counterinsurgency title rather than an invasion/assault title the game would look very different. The closest the game has to MRAP is the Canadian Nyala. Some scenarios do get mighty close to being occupation/counterinsurgency fights but they're still in the context of taking territory and pressing towards a goal.

[Sequoia]

If there were enemy forces about I'd rather take my chances with the mines rather than ride on top of vehicle like that.