M1A1TC Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Hello The Abrams in game is missing a loader. He would be manning the 240B MG and covering left flank, while spotting for infantry and helicopters. Once buttoned, the loader is too busy loading main gun rounds. But why isnt he at his post when tank is unbottoned? This takes away 3rd machine gun and more spotting ability from in-game Abrams. Maybe someone else had their loader stick out of the hatch? I have seen the hatch open/close 5-6 times, not sure why. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 um, he does.. I'll pull you a photo, wait one... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 You are only partially right. His default position is inside when unbuttoned. He only pops out to fire the MMG when given the target light order. You would have a better idea then me as to why he might not be topside by default when unbuttoned. One might want someone looking through the powerful scopes to complement the TCs eyeball Mk1? *edit* Doh, the gunner would already be doing that. Yeah, now that I think about it it doesn't make sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted October 15, 2007 Author Share Posted October 15, 2007 TC would have binos...Loader MK1 Eyeball 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 I live for the loader to unbutton and open up. Patton said "the most important weapon on the Tank was not it's Cannon but it's MG". BFC did a very good job of allowing all 3 positions to target separately. Do I think some things are missing? Yes. All the Abrams should have binoculars, yet only the commander and xo have them in game. It’s apparently a game balance issue. The loader being in the unbuttoned postion as default, maybe on the TUSK kit (URBAN) but not here the armor threat is too high in this theatre. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted October 15, 2007 Author Share Posted October 15, 2007 HOLY CRAP!! THERE IS A LOADER! I havent seen one since I been playing [ October 15, 2007, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: M1A1TankCommander ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 LOL! Your welcome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chainsaw Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 And this leads to the big question we had with the Tank Coy when I was in the army... SHOULD the loader really man a MG? he is needed as loader of HE and SABOT rounds down in the turret, its a damn waste to have him knocked out by srapnel, sniper or lucky MG fire. The reason this question turned up against the Tank guys was that both their TC and Loader was fully exposed for us grunts, we fired at them but nothing happend, and the loader blazed away with his MG3... SO after a while they got same BT west as we had (wich marks when you are hit) and after a few killed loaders and TCs the loader dissapered and the TC held his head damn low. The Tankers had realized how bad it is to have a wounded loader that cant load next round... So should the loader really man that extra MG? obviusly its US forces SOP to do so in MOUT, but how smart is it really? (if you consider our exercise results) /Chainsaw 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 Thats why loader gets a ballistic shield with TUSK upgrade. And you are right, I felt damn exposed out there. Plus you cant really hit anything, the MG just jumps all over the place 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Originally posted by Huntarr: The loader being in the unbuttoned postion as default, maybe on the TUSK kit (URBAN) but not here the armor threat is too high in this theatre. Originally posted by Chainsaw: So should the loader really man that extra MG? obviusly its US forces SOP to do so in MOUT, but how smart is it really? (if you consider our exercise results)There's no reason for the loader to be buttoned up when out of contact. He should be spotting above the hatch same as the commander. On the other hand when contact is made and the main gun is used, he will naturally button up to load the main gun. There's no reason for ANY of the crew to be exposed when the shooting starts - sort of makes all the armor around you pointless. [ October 16, 2007, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: Exel ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Hey M1, Can the TC hatch on the M1 still do that half closed thing so the commander can scan better but has some armor over his head? I don't think it is in the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 One odd thing I just noticed in-game, with the M1A2 you of course have to unbutton your TC to fire the .50 cal Browning, but on th M1A1s t he's instead compelled to button up to fire the remote-operated weapon! I had never thought of this before. Maybe I was just viewing a crew buttoning oddity. Is there any utility in an M1A1 TC being out of the hatch while firing his mg? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq): Hey M1, Can the TC hatch on the M1 still do that half closed thing so the commander can scan better but has some armor over his head? I don't think it is in the game. yes, it can. No, I dont think it's in the game On M1A1 you can stick out a little out of the hatch while firing 50cal to observe rounds on target better. Plus you would have to reload it sometimes 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Withstand Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Originally posted by Chainsaw: And this leads to the big question we had with the Tank Coy when I was in the army... SHOULD the loader really man a MG? he is needed as loader of HE and SABOT rounds down in the turret, its a damn waste to have him knocked out by srapnel, sniper or lucky MG fire. The reason this question turned up against the Tank guys was that both their TC and Loader was fully exposed for us grunts, we fired at them but nothing happend, and the loader blazed away with his MG3... SO after a while they got same BT west as we had (wich marks when you are hit) and after a few killed loaders and TCs the loader dissapered and the TC held his head damn low. The Tankers had realized how bad it is to have a wounded loader that cant load next round... So should the loader really man that extra MG? obviusly its US forces SOP to do so in MOUT, but how smart is it really? (if you consider our exercise results) /Chainsaw You just said that the commander is pretty much expendable compared to the loader..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 The capability of the TC's dual stage hatch on the M1 (allowing it to be half open yet still providing some top cover) was something that we wanted to code, but it just proved too tricky to do properly. On M1A1's the TC can fire the M2 .50 cal from inside (remotely) but that functionality was removed in the M1A2 because they needed the space taken up by the remote mechanism for other electronic jiggery-pokery. This is modeled in game. Madmatt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 Madmatt How about allowing the loader to use his MG with "unbutton" command? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tc237 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 The .50cal on an M1A1 can be fired for both inside (electronically) and outside (manually). The optics for the weapon are inside. The optics are prone to fogging, breaking or becoming mis-aligned (losing boresight). They can be a real pain in the ass sometimes. The electronic trigger mechanism is also prone to breaking. Sometimes it is better to just start firing the weapon and adjust manually then it is to get inside and attempt to aim with blurry optics. Depends on the target and situation. Many times I had to fire the .50cal manually in gunnery, but made damn sure I had a working one in Iraq. A very good friend of mine was with 3-69AR, 3ID in OIF, his sights broke in the first few hours of the push north and he fought most of the war outside the hatch, firing manually (even using his hand to press the "butterfly" trigger). Point of all this is to say, **** happens. Reality is very different then what is written in all those fancy books. I'm glad BFC understands that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted October 20, 2007 Author Share Posted October 20, 2007 I served in 2-69, 3rd ID 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiny_tanker Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Withstand: You just said that the commander is pretty much expendable compared to the loader..... Well a tank is designed to shoot the cannon at other tanks, if the person that loads the cannon is dead you can't really do that.... so yeah to the "mission" of a tank the loader is less expendable since the gunner can call his own targets if he needed to. Now having said that, you really don't want to lose anyone on a tank crew, which is why they put all of those safety measures into place. Now I'm not a tanker like M1A1 (he might be able to put it into better words then me), but I know a few of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Originally posted by tiny_tanker: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Withstand: You just said that the commander is pretty much expendable compared to the loader..... Well a tank is designed to shoot the cannon at other tanks, if the person that loads the cannon is dead you can't really do that.... so yeah to the "mission" of a tank the loader is less expendable since the gunner can call his own targets if he needed to. Now having said that, you really don't want to lose anyone on a tank crew, which is why they put all of those safety measures into place. Now I'm not a tanker like M1A1 (he might be able to put it into better words then me), but I know a few of them. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 yeah, you could fight without a TC. A gunner would just take his spot, and fire from TC position. Thats why gunner is usually second highest in rank on a crew, plus most experienced 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.