Tank Control and Positions
 

Hey,

It has already been suggested many times that driver and gunner should be seperated when in tanks, for historical realism. This has never been implemented, due to the fact that people will have to change position to fire the main gun, and the driver will not have any weapons to fire with.

Some tanks (e.g Tiger, PzIVH) already come with a Bow MG position, manned by an extra person, and historically other tanks (e.g. Sherman, PzIII, PzIV, T-34) had these MG Positions as well.

I suggest merging the Drivers/Bow MGers positons, giving a driver with control of the tank, a MG to mow down infantry, and very restricted vision (as is historically accurate). There would be a gunners position, with control over the turret, main gun, and Co-Axial MG, and again, restricted vision, but with the ability to turn the view point to survey the area. The other positions, such as passenger, and cupola MGer could remain unchanged.

The driver could have two types of view, as is currently implemented with the gunsights. One on the machine gun, with a Narrow Field of View, and one through the square we normally get when driving, but stuck looking forward. The gunner could remain unchanged, with the square view for looking around (which would move with the turret), and the narrow gunsight.

Light Tanks, Such as the Pz. II, which did not carry these bow MGs could remain unchanged.

I think this is a good idea because it supports teamplay, and makes the Mod more historically accurate. Tanks could still be operated by one person alone, by switching positions (as is commonly used in artillery such as wespe and priest), but it would be more efficient with a crew of two, increasing the potency of the tank, but also placing an emphasis on good tactics, as enemys would be hunting tanks like crazy, as two kills would be awarded. It would also make tanks harder to kill, with a manned MG in the front, meaning infantry would have to approach from the sides/back to be safe.

I welcome your opinions on this.

Thanks,

Scion.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

No it would not work out. Imagine your dukeing it out with tanks and some n00b drives off with your tank. Its a horrible idea.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

and it would cut the number of tanks on the field in half

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

If it's that much of a problem, why are Wepses, Kats, and other mobile artillery platforms still in game?

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

Exactly, this system has always been implemented in Vanilla BF in artillery, why can it not be applied to medium/heavy tanks as well?

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

one phrase
coax machine gun
and plus AP shell is not splast

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

Artillary is a rear area unit at least in common practice. Tanks are used to breakthrough it would not work.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

ugh.

NO

alright people? STOP SUGGESTING THIS.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

The only way i see this beinf implimeted is on heavy tanks aka tigers, king tigers, is-2, pershing(if added) but nothing else. Mabye other duper heavy tanks though.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

If voice communication was standard in this game between driver and gunner, then maybe! But as it stands, how do you tell the moron driving that he's just passes a IS-2 that's going to get off another shot in 10 seconds?

Typing isn't really an option!