Why can't infantry ride tanks & other non HT AFVs?

[John Kettler]

I tried doing this in Roadblock, but couldn't get it to work. From long experience with CMx1, I'm used to being able to put men and support weapons on tanks and similar AFVs. Did I mess up the procedure, or is there simply no provision? I tried to move an MG team up the road on the deck of a Sherman, issued what I thought was the right order, including several pauses for the tank, hit the button, and was unhappy to see the Sherman drive off without my men aboard.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

You must have used the wrong combination of orders.

You need to left click twice, then press 'm' (for 'mount'), then right click, and then 'u' (for 'up'). Try that and see how you go. But be aware that the timing on this one is really sensitive. If you do the two left clicks just a little too fast or a little too slow it won't work.

[noob]

You must have used the wrong combination of orders.

You need to left click twice, then press 'm' (for 'mount'), then right click, and then 'u' (for 'up'). Try that and see how you go. But be aware that the timing on this one is really sensitive. If you do the two left clicks just a little too fast or a little too slow it won't work.

You are so cruel, everybody knows it's the "Bail In" button

[Tank Hunter]

LOL, play nicely now JonS..

There is no way to mount infantry on tanks right now, it is not supported. I believe the explanation was that US/German troops simply did not ride on tanks into battle. They would normally dissmount just before engaging.

When we go to EF however then mounting on tanks will be a must and I'm sure BF will include it then. Who knows, with the new version strategy we may see tank-riding infantry in CMBN aswell eventually.

[TheVulture]

Trolls aside, it isn't something that is in the game (yet). It was obviously not relevant to CMSF (well, I wouldn't fancy sitting on ERA blocks personally), and was a rather low priority for Normandy and Sicily. I'd guess it will make a reappearance by the time Bagration turns up, since tank riders (in near-combat sutuations, rather than hitching a lift miles from the action) is something mostly associated with the Soviets in WWII.

[MikeyD]

Seriously, tank riding is not in for two reasons.

Reason 1) Nobody in their right mind would ride a tank deck as close to the enemy as a standard size CM map. You usually start a scenario at the forward line of contact. Tanks are shell and bullet magnets, an experienced infantryman would want to be as far from a nearby tank as possible. Bullets tend to bounce off tanks and kill nearby soldiers in the game.

Reason 2) BFC experimented with tank riding briefly and found a cascade of actions and animations had to be special-coded. When to jump off/when to stay on, when should tanks use their main guns, turrets rotating 180 degrees through seated soldiers, animations and model poses. Issue after issue. Its something that'll need to be addressed come the Eastern Front but could be put aside since its tactically insignificant in Normandy.

[John Kettler]

Tank Hunter,TheVulture,MikeyD,

Thanks for the information, even if it is a bummer. Is this also true for CMFI (admittedly a hypothetical, since I don't have the game and can barely play this one)?

Given Reason 1, someone needs to explain to me why the U.S. did exactly that, on Stuarts no less! This is the hedgerow breach Doubler describes in CLOSING WITH THE ENEMY, in which the hedgerow's blown in two corners, the Stuarts charge, in spewing canister and MG fire into the back corners, with the infantry there to keep anyone from getting cute and going after the tanks. Must've been spectacular to watch!

Reason 2 makes a lot of sense, sadly.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

In addition to what MikeyD wrote, I recall Steve also mentioning that with 1:1 modeling, there would be problems in calculating just who on a tank would have cover from incoming fire and who wouldn't, keeping in mind that fire could be coming from multiple directions. It would be a real resource hog for that reason alone.

Michael

[Thomm]

BFC experimented with tank riding briefly ...

And it was cool while it lasted!

Best regards,

Thomm

[stikkypixie]

In addition to what MikeyD wrote, I recall Steve also mentioning that with 1:1 modeling, there would be problems in calculating just who on a tank would have cover from incoming fire and who wouldn't, keeping in mind that fire could be coming from multiple directions. It would be a real resource hog for that reason alone.

Michael

Are you sure about that? The whole idea of the model based ballistics is that stuff is taken care of naturally.

[ZPB II]

Tank riding was something that in the majority of the cases happened outside combat. At a leisurely pace.

Nevermind the fact that the infantry is so high above the ground that any artillery landing nearby will shower them with shrapnel, it is also very hard for a tank to do manouvres at combat speeds if a squad of infantry is riding on top.

I have ridden on the deck and turret of a Leopard 2A4 doing combat manouver training in a forest in pouring rain. After this, myself and every member of my squad was physically exhausted.

Holding on to the tank at such speeds for a length of time while wearing your combat gear required quite an amount of strength and balance. Yes, we made it there faster but at a much greater risk and we were in much worse fighting condition.

We asked about the risks and viability and the answer was that if the condition rises where you have to ride a tank to combat, everything has gone catastrophically wrong on such a level that personal safety is no longer a concern, you will die anyway.

[Cymru]

However, it would be nice to have a 'use as cover' command in which the infantry stick to one side of the tank which acts as a shield. This was a common tactic, but is hard to replicate since it requires having the tank and infantry move at the same speed.

[womble]

However, it would be nice to have a 'use as cover' command in which the infantry stick to one side of the tank which acts as a shield. This was a common tactic, but is hard to replicate since it requires having the tank and infantry move at the same speed.

Quick for Infantry is pretty similar to Slow for vehicles. You'd have to practice it in a safe environment to see how close they match and when the tank has to put a pause in (or vice-versa).

[Paper Tiger]

Quick for Infantry is pretty similar to Slow for vehicles.

Agreed. It's especially close with Churchills and Infantry.

[sburke]

Tank Hunter,TheVulture,MikeyD,

Given Reason 1, someone needs to explain to me why the U.S. did exactly that, on Stuarts no less! This is the hedgerow breach Doubler describes in CLOSING WITH THE ENEMY, in which the hedgerow's blown in two corners, the Stuarts charge, in spewing canister and MG fire into the back corners, with the infantry there to keep anyone from getting cute and going after the tanks. Must've been spectacular to watch!

Regards,

John Kettler

Yeah! Also I once read about a soldier using an apple to fool German's in MG! They thought it was a grenade and ducked allowing him to escape, so why aren't apples in CM?

! just cause I like exclamation points.

[TrailApe]

Are you sure it was an apple?

I thought the 'go-to' fruit in an emergency were pineapples to simulate grenades.........

especially if they are still in their tin ('can' for our transatlantic bretheren)

"I know an old bloke and his name is Lord Jim,

And he had a wife who threw tomatoes at him,

Now tomatoes are juicy, don't injure the skin,

But these ones they did, they was inside a tin".

[sburke]

Are you sure it was an apple?

I thought the 'go-to' fruit in an emergency were pineapples to simulate grenades.........

especially if they are still in their tin ('can' for our transatlantic bretheren)

"I know an old bloke and his name is Lord Jim,

And he had a wife who threw tomatoes at him,

Now tomatoes are juicy, don't injure the skin,

But these ones they did, they was inside a tin".

True and there is always this training guide to keep in mind on the dangers of fruit armed assailants.

Notice how deadly the pistol is as well.

[TrailApe]

python! is there nothing they havn't tried?

Blackadder knows his fruit also....

Edmund: Well, you see, George, I did like it, back in the old days when the

prerequisite of a British campaign was that the enemy should under

no circumstances carry guns -- even spears made us think twice. The

kind of people we liked to fight were two feet tall and armed with

dry grass.

George: Now, come off it, sir -- what about Mboto Gorge, for heaven's sake?

Edmund: Yes, that was a bit of a nasty one -- ten thousand Watusi warriors

armed to the teeth with kiwi fruit and guava halves. After the battle,

instead of taking prisoners, we simply made a huge fruit salad

[Dan Dare]

Gents, reading your explanations given here for the NO TO TANK RIDE BY NOW, i could clearly identify two kinds of, as follows:

A)nonsense...unless you think that riding inside a truck in a hot combat area is much safer...

B)technical compromise...which is clear and understandable

to those of you that missed it...in ww2, even US mech infantry (when dealing with bad terrain and therefore could not pace with the panks) dismounted their h/t, mount the back of the tanks, and rode to hot ACTION areas with them

bear also in mind that in CMBN the order to when a truck, halftrack or car has to be mounted or dismounted is given based on your wisdown as uber commander

[Dan Dare]

he he, i missed another option

C)grocery...for sure it is not possible to call it fruitless, but do not provide much info to the question in discussion

[womble]

G

A)nonsense...unless you think that riding inside a truck in a hot combat area is much safer...

Except that the tank is going looking for a fight, and the truck, erm, isn't. There's a strong argument for not having trucks anywhere near the fighting (i.e. much further back than us gung-ho generals will use them, so far back they never appear on the map), but there are situations on large maps where the action would stagnate without something to shuffle troops across large distances. If tank riding were possible, it would be used all the time (saving only self-restraint) which would be "historically" incongruous with the theatre being portrayed.

[Vinnart]

I also look forward to inf riding tanks ala cmx1.

[Rocky Balboa]

Except that the tank is going looking for a fight, and the truck, erm, isn't. There's a strong argument for not having trucks anywhere near the fighting (i.e. much further back than us gung-ho generals will use them, so far back they never appear on the map), but there are situations on large maps where the action would stagnate without something to shuffle troops across large distances. If tank riding were possible, it would be used all the time (saving only self-restraint) which would be "historically" incongruous with the theatre being portrayed.

Why don't we use trucks all the time or keep infantry mounted in HT's all the time? The answer of course is we have learned that a single penetration would likely take out all occupants. Making tank riding less dangerous than riding in a HT or truck and players will use it with impunity. Make riding on a tank just as dangerous as an Ht or truck, will prevent players from using the tactic without reservation.

Of course if it be comes so dangerous that players decide not to use it, then why waste the time to code it when there are other things that need dev attention?

Like most things its not as easy as it sounds. If CMx2 is to be called a sim then it must be done correctly or not done at all.

[sburke]

Why don't we use trucks all the time or keep infantry mounted in HT's all the time? The answer of course is we have learned that a single penetration would likely take out all occupants. Making tank riding less dangerous than riding in a HT or truck and players will use it with impunity. Make riding on a tank just as dangerous as an Ht or truck, will prevent players from using the tactic without reservation.

Of course if it be comes so dangerous that players decide not to use it, then why waste the time to code it when there are other things that need dev attention?

Like most things its not as easy as it sounds. If CMx2 is to be called a sim then it must be done correctly or not done at all.

Yeah I realize this is probably heresy, but I look at this one as so much eye candy. Unless we have maps of scale large enough to warrant it, I don't really see myself having my Infantry hitchhike a ride. I am much more focused on some nuances of TAC AI and possibly some UI additions. Being able to poke around a corner with an MG or AT weapon would be a huge deal for urban fighting and likely be used far more often.

Was playing a scenario from TF Panther in CMSF last night and even fighting against the AI I was totally impressed (and immersed) with the overall urban combat. Just a couple additions for the WW2 battlefield could make for a helluva game experience for Aachen or Stalingrad. I know this one has been talked to death and I understand the difficulties involved, but the gun elevation concerns for armor in built up areas could also have huge ramifications for urban combat. I'd take any of those over tank riding any day of the week and twice on weekends!

[Frankster65]

Yeah I realize this is probably heresy, but I look at this one as so much eye candy. Unless we have maps of scale large enough to warrant it, I don't really see myself having my Infantry hitchhike a ride. I am much more focused on some nuances of TAC AI and possibly some UI additions. Being able to poke around a corner with an MG or AT weapon would be a huge deal for urban fighting and likely be used far more often.

Was playing a scenario from TF Panther in CMSF last night and even fighting against the AI I was totally impressed (and immersed) with the overall urban combat. Just a couple additions for the WW2 battlefield could make for a helluva game experience for Aachen or Stalingrad. I know this one has been talked to death and I understand the difficulties involved, but the gun elevation concerns for armor in built up areas could also have huge ramifications for urban combat. I'd take any of those over tank riding any day of the week and twice on weekends!

Absolutely agree. +1