thewood Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Is it a technical or doctrinal reason for no tank riders? Hopefully no one notices the double post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 The only instance I know of infantry riding on tank was during WW2, those crazy Russians with lack of APCs and common sense. Tank riders died very quickly. You should never,ever ride on the outside of a tank. When that turret moves, it will crush anything in it's way. If the main gun goes off, you will be deaf for sure. You are not even suppose to stand on the turret. We use "3 point contact" at all times. Its pretty high up there, and you can get hurt by falling off 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 I was watching a video of the war in Afganistan and saw a lot of Northern Alliance and Taliban soldiers riding them. I can understand the US not doing it, but I would think an army lacking mobility would use it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Proves my point Afganis have: Lack of APCs Lack of training/common sense 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 Yeah, but they do it. The rules in Afgan. are obviously different than for the US Army. That is sometimes my pet peeves for wargames developed in the US. They build foreign armies on preconceptions based on US SOP and culture. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 So you think the game should let Syrians ride their tanks? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogface Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Who cares if the Afghanis did/do it as they are not represented by CM:SF. The real question should be "Do the Syrians do it?". It Looks to me that battlefront did not build the Syrian forces based on US SOP or culture. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 I agree on BFC and Syrians...that was the answer I was looking for. If BFC says they don't do it based on research, fine. I am just pointing out that some armies do it, whether they have SOP or not. The main reason I am asking is I just don't know if the Syrians have enough transport to get infantry where they are needed. It would give some tactical flexibility to be able use it. Once again the question is whether its doctrine or computing resources. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Also, the consequences of people riding on a tank could be hard to model. Certainly, if the tank gets blown up, then it's very easy! But it's hard to model the effects of soldiers being deafened, for example. Also, something else to consider: Perhaps the Syrians would ride on tanks, but once they arrived at the battlefield (i.e. in the game) they'd dismount, which is what I would do if I were they. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I think it's the modelling of this that finished of tank riders. You'd have to animate a bunch of soldiers getting on and off a variety of vehicles. A lot of work for something that does not seem Syrian doctrine and only of marginal value anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: I agree on BFC and Syrians...that was the answer I was looking for. If BFC says they don't do it based on research, fine. I am just pointing out that some armies do it, whether they have SOP or not. The main reason I am asking is I just don't know if the Syrians have enough transport to get infantry where they are needed. It would give some tactical flexibility to be able use it. Once again the question is whether its doctrine or computing resources. Your first post was "Is it a technical or doctrinal reason for no tank riders?" You didnt specify Syrian or US. I am a US tanker, so the anwser I gave you is per US Army doctrine. If you want specific anwsers, you should ask specific questions like : Do Syrian infantry soldier ride on tanks? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 No I didn't specify. My answer covered everything I wanted to know. I never said what is US SOP. My question stands. You also spoke by applying specific experience as a general question. You said never ever ride on a tank. I asked specifically if it was doctrine or programming. I was looking for an answer from someone with knowledge of why BFC made the decision they did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Is this really where you want BFC to spend their development time? CMSF is a tactical wargame, not an operational one. How far do you think Tankodesantniki would be able to ride on the exposed back of a tank in a CMSF scenario before they got shredded by long-range MG fire? Might Syrian soldiers hop aboard a tank to get to the battlefield if other transport were short? Sure. Would they stay on the tank very long once the sound of shooting got closer? No way. Actually, all the video footage of Taliban and other irregulars riding on AFVs is clearly far away from any actual shooting. To me, this is one of those things that would be great to have if CMSF were in such perfect shape that BFC was having trouble finding more things to add/fix. But as it is now, I think there are plenty of other things to occupy Charles' time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 4, 2007 Author Share Posted October 4, 2007 Am I not allowed to ask the question? I was curious. I am sure glad Steve has all these gatekeepers to keep from the likes of curious fans like me. just so you guys feel better, I got a QB with some T55s and some piss poor infantry that had to slog across almost a km of map to an objective with no transport. They had 30 minutes to do it. Just thought it would be useful to get them part way there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Well they do have T62's. The rail around the lower turret is for infantry to grab hold of. Tankniki didn't die out in WW2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: Am I not allowed to ask the question? I was curious. I am sure glad Steve has all these gatekeepers to keep from the likes of curious fans like me. just so you guys feel better, I got a QB with some T55s and some piss poor infantry that had to slog across almost a km of map to an objective with no transport. They had 30 minutes to do it. Just thought it would be useful to get them part way there. I never disuputed your *right* to ask this question. I simply stated my opinion that there are better querys on which to spend your time. Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RT North Dakota Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Actually there is a published US SOP for a squad to ride on an M1A1/2. It's in the manuals. Everyone rides on the turret. I guess its for marches rather than combat ops and an act of last resort. Obvioulsy under certain circumstances, this is very useful, correctly applied and done rationally - ...some hope.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 thewood, good question. Will we see it in the WWII-release? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jBrereton Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 I thought that tank-riding was pretty much made stupendously hazardous nowadays by ERA, no? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 The answer seems simple enough...if you lack other means of transport, or you have some compelling reason, i.e. getting your ass out of some really bad situation, you're going to hop on a tank. It does not mean that it is or is not a training doctrine used by one side or the other. The Syrians seem to have loads of BMPs and the like, would they really ride on their tanks as part of their regular training? Maybe...like I said I think that the particular situation would dictate it, and it probably does not happen as much today as it did in past conflicts, so BFC left it out. BTW US Marines will ride on anything in order to avoid walking any distance 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 I suppose in modern days, where your tank gets killed from 3km away before you see anything, sitting on it became out of fashion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOG Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Tank riding makes more sense in WWII game, where on big maps there are places where you are almost comletely safe from enemy fire. At longer ranges you would probably get enough time to get your infantry down from a tank before it would got hit. In CMSF range, accuracy and lethality of weapons makes maps to small to use tank riding in a sensible way. Sometimes it could get useful, but it is not very important to realism of game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNac Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Still mostlly an operational procedure, so I don't think it should be modelled for WWII either. Now, if they have a lot of free time... but is not the case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luderbamsen Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 There is a bloody awful huge difference between riding a tank into battle, tankniki-style, and hitching a ride in a rear area. 9 out of 10 contemporary pics of tank riders will be of the latter type. I do seem to recall US infantry figting from the engine decks of Abrams tanks during OIF1, but it could be my deranged mind playing tricks again. Should BFC waste any time on it? Not now, but worth remembering come CMxWW2 time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omenowl Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 I don't think it needs to be modeled on the small scale of CMSF. Unless one side surprises the other odds are you won't see troops ride a tank near a combat zone. It takes about 20 minutes to walk a mile so you would dismount maybe 1 or 2 miles out. Same reason we don't see company march formations. Just not something that happens when you expect combat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.