M1A1TC Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Why was BV 202, BV 206 not included in the British module list? I saw photos of it in the Middle East Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 They look cool but I can't imagine it being in combat. Trucks fall into the same category I suppose but they're at least common enough to have at least some of them get caught up in fighting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bv202 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted February 20, 2009 Author Share Posted February 20, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Oh I don't deny they were used, just not very common. I'd rather see US army LMTV or MTV or a Syrian truck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 All I can do is direct you to the Brit module vehicle list on the website. There's all sorts of good reasons for putting it in the game, and one good reason for not. Is an articulated vehicle with double track sets simply outside the game engine's scope? Its not like there are a dozen similar vehicles out there to share the special coding, or an application to be carried over for the WWII title. It's like special-coding Russian dog-mines - A lot of time and effort expended for comparatively little utility. Basically an ugly truck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Speaking of trucks, doesn't the British Army use MAN trucks these days? Had they of thrown those in it would have done double duty with the NATO module. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wengart Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Its like a Bren carrier just without the Bren and they finally got a cab on the thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 And there's probably a tripod in there somewhere...maybe glued to the bottom of the hull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 BV202 has been long, long since out of use. Wasn't very good, so they made the BV206 to replace it. And there are other versions as well. Why isn't it included? Simple... it's used by Royal Marines only (AFAIK) and we aren't including Royal Marines. The other reason is we do not have a need to code a tandem vehicle like the BV206. Since it's not a trivial thing to code, we don't want to do it just for the one vehicle. I almost bought a BV206 several years ago Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 The Brits have a lot of odd looking vehicles, don't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Only in this case they bought it from the Swedes Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Eddie- Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 The British Army started buying these vehicles in 2008 I believe, after the Marines had such good fun with them in 2007. British Army equipment section Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 The vehicle that should be in is not the BV206 but rather the BVS210, the armoured version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Did Britain buy their latest batch from Sweden or from Singapore, which also has a production line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 deleted per user request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Singapore doesn't make BVS 210 - AKA the Viking - but it does build the similar but slightly larger Bronco. Up to now the Army and RM have used the Viking but the Bronco is now being procured, as the Warthog, as it has better carrying capacity and improved survivability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdp Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Except the Viking then, will we be able to simulate Royal Marines Establishment with what we get in the module? (Mechanized Inf, Armoured Inf - and Light Inf..?) regards/ sdp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Adam, That would be great for camping, I'm not sure there are many places you'd be allowed to take it What's the rule on operating these things cross-country? Register it as a snowmobile (trust me, it can be ) and around here you can drive it for hundreds of miles without covering the same ground. Sure, you might run over a couple of snowmobiles in the process, but hey... it's a free country! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chainsaw Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 ha! the british army homepage misspelled the only swedish word in the articel "The Viking is a follow-on from the BV202 and the BV206. BV stands for 'Bandvagen' in Swedish which means that it is driven via rubber tracks." Its actually "Bandvagn", not "Bandvagen" :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 The other reason is we do not have a need to code a tandem vehicle like the BV206. Since it's not a trivial thing to code, we don't want to do it just for the one vehicle. Then you should have said you needed more! Here's another vehicle: NA-140 BT And a third one: NA-110 And let's not limit things to tandem... You will anyway need to come back to jointed vehicles when doing the East Front armoured trains, or at least with Space Lobsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Chainsaw, ha! the british army homepage misspelled the only swedish word in the articel "The Viking is a follow-on from the BV202 and the BV206. BV stands for 'Bandvagen' in Swedish which means that it is driven via rubber tracks." Its actually "Bandvagn", not "Bandvagen" What do you expect from a nation that insists that Armor is spelled Armour, Maneuver is spelled Manoeuvre, and French Fries spelled Chips (and Chips spelled Crisps). They're a silly lot ' Sergei, Now you're just trying to make me regret not buying one! That's cruel. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yair Iny Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 just being curious here, what exactly is the point with making it a jointed tandem vehicle? Couldn't it just be longer or would that just make it the "super gavin" (oh the humanity) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Steve, how's the Weasel holding up? You know you'll have to include one in the Bulge game eventually just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Yair Iny, Jointed tandem means that the BVs have very tight cornering and the ability to crest sharp ridges without sacrificing low ground pressure. Since both cabs have power I suspect that it can run even if it has broken one track Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts