Passanger capacity?

[['nzn]]

Hi!

I saw a photo named "Soviet T-70 tanks attack under *sometown*, *somedate*": there were a couple of tankies rolling a field under fire, some explosions were seen and on the nearest t70 there lied a DP gunner (aside of the turret) firing his mg. It got my attention coz i really wonder why cant some soldiers embark on these tanks in CM! That place near turret seems very suitable for at least a sharpshooter!

And further i wonder why are all the vehicles in the game made with such a strict and narrow passanger capacity? In a truck for example theres plenty space for 30 men if they stand! And for some couple more men if they hang at the back of it or somewhere. And if you watch in a movie how it was done during the war youll never see a truck going half empty. There were not so many trucks after all for every squad of infantry to ride with comfort.

I see two possible objections against larger capacity. First, there were some written rules for transportation using different vehicles and second, its a game balance for which's sake the strict capacity is better.

About rules i have to tell the following - in russian tradition theres no much attention usually payed to such kind of rules and whether it is a choice for a commander to get all his platoon in a truck standing in the back though in time to the position and fresh or to obey some "rules for capacity" - he wont think twice. Of course there is a risk of kia all togather from a bomb incoming, but who cares for risk at war if there is need??

And about balance... if BFC has ever thought about game balance it wouldnt let the germans use their 150s!!!

In general my question is the following: why cant i force my men to sit there a bit closer to each other? Wouldnt it be more realistic to widen passanger capacities of vehicles? Now wont that fellow t70's tanker let the whole squad of infantry ride his roof (and even his main gun if needed) over that fields, provided he's not gonna engage immideately? And if myself specially asks him... :E

And then if he does take some fire unexpectedly that "overcapacity" squad might suffer more... as well as the tank should get some penalties.

Wont BFC do smf here?

Cheers,

nzn

[Leit]

You are right.

It would be better to add possibility to put more men on armor or trucks (not for russians, by the way!) and increase bogging, regucing speed, or even breaking engine/shassi depending on overloading level.

For future engine I think. For CMBB, bused on virtual "capasity points" it's impossible i think.

[Shosties]

You can cram a company HQ section into a Kubelwagen. IIRC that's six guys! Can you say clown car?

[ww2steel]

Yes, I agree-

Nyet! You can't ride on my tank!

It should be a larger capacity.

Mike

[YankeeDog]

IMHO the real problem is that a team of up to 6 men (plus an HMG w/ tripod!) will fit on a Pz38(t), but a T-70 can't carry an infantry team at all.

I'm not sure how reliable these specs are, but a quick comparison from stats found on a google search:

T-70: 140 hp engine, 9200kg GVW. 2.32m wide x 4.29m long x 2.04m h.

38(t) Asf. G: 125hp engine, 9850kg GVW. 2.14m wide x 4.61m long x 2.40m high.

So the T-70 has more engine power, and is also a big lighter than the 38(t)G. Torque is actually a more important stat than horsepower when it comes to pulling a heavy load, but I couldn't find torque stats for the two powerplants. Nevertheless, given that the T-70 has *both* more horsepower *and* less weight, I find it unlikely that it would actually have a lower torque-weight ratio that the 38(t) through most of its power curve.

Another possibility is that the T-70's deck was somehow less suited for riding that the 38(t)'s, but the length x width 'footprint of the two tanks is similar (the T-70 is only slightly smaller in this regard), and based on a quick visual inspection of pictures, I can't see how the T-70 would be significantly harder to ride than a 38(t). In any event, as the original post in this thread notes, there are plenty of pictures of small groups of Russian infantry riding, and even fighting, from the backs of T-70s.

So, in summary, it seems to me that either BOTH Pz 35/38(t) tanks AND T-60/70 tanks should be able to carry and infantry team, or NEITHER family of AFVs should be able to -- I can see arguments both ways. The way CMBB has it just seems arbitrary and unrealistic to me.

Cheers,

YD

[Holman]

Speaking of clown cars, does anyone remember the clown car bug in early CMBO? Under some circumstances, an abandoned vehicle would just keep producing crew after crew after crew. There was a great screenshot posted of dozens of dead crews lying around a wrecked Puma as yet another one climbed out into the line of fire.

[tar]

Hmmm. I always liked the philosophy Major H (TacOps creator - modern combat) had about vehicle capacity. In his game, vehicles had a capacity in terms of the number of men they could hold, but the game would allow you to overload them by a couple of men, since "you could always cram a few more men in if you really needed to."

That seemed like a quite practical solution. It also means that a reduced strength squad would also fit into smaller vehicles than one at full strength. I'm not sure if CM takes current strength into account for loading vehicles or not.

[flamingknives]

It does. Once a squad is under 6 men, it will fit in a 'team' sized transport.

[Herr Kruger]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

It does. Once a squad is under 6 men, it will fit in a 'team' sized transport.

That I didn't know. I learned something today! Kewl.. hehe

J Kruger

[Herr Kruger]

Originally posted by Martyr:

Speaking of clown cars, does anyone remember the clown car bug in early CMBO? Under some circumstances, an abandoned vehicle would just keep producing crew after crew after crew. There was a great screenshot posted of dozens of dead crews lying around a wrecked Puma as yet another one climbed out into the line of fire.

That I would love to have seen. lol

J Kruger

[JasonC]

T-70s not only carried riders, they even towed guns. I've seen pictures of it - a whole battery of ZIS-3s being repositioned by a company of T-70s. Guns towed by some, gunners piled on others. The only reason they can't in CMBB is the "German physics" factor, aka everything Russian is 85% of reality.

[Sirocco]

It might make sense to overload transport in actual transit to the battlefield, but not actually on the battlefield itself, and that's what CM depicts.