The Tauchpanzer, to my knowledge, were designed to do just that, seeing as how the Germans expected an extremely hot reception during Operation Sealion. So if someone makes a fantasy Sealion map, there's no reason why you couldn't have Panzer IIIs "emerge from the water with guns blazing."

But like I said, I've never heard of any actually doing that in combat -- I could be wrong! To my knowledge, DDs, Ka-Mis and as Pietje said, some Soviet models (which I'm unfamiliar with) were the only amphibious tanks operationally deployed and used in their intended combat role in substantial numbers.

Again, I'm no saying the Germans did not use amphibious/diving tanks to cross bodies of water under fire and in combat, just that I have never ever seen a reference to it.

That would be interesting too but is that actually possible with the BF2 engine without serious problems? If its possible we could add vehicles such as the sdkfz 251/7 mittlerer pionierpanzerwagen or the Bruckenleger I/II/IV.

as you know most of the tanks in FH don't even can cross a shallow stream... lol

Why should I, when I have you and about ten other fanatics here who can answer my question in 10 seconds? :p

Well if these tanks could actually start firing as soon as the turret got out of the water, then salute to the engineers, I truly am amazed!

this could be solved by making a heat bar for the gun when you are in water it heats up and takes a while to cool down, if this is codable it's done

I doubt that even with a schnorkel, it could stay submerged for very long.

So you really think it's OK that while you're vulnerable all the time, while he can just submerge himself like a submarine?

And yes, if I was in a tiger and knew that if I came back up I'd be destroyed I would 'wait there forever'. Sooner or later you'd be driven off or destroyed and I'd have a repair unit drive up to the river and repair me, or, better yet, repair myself. Then I'd be ready to take on Allies again.

If, however, attacking them is as easy as firing a panzerfaust at their snorkel, I'm all for it.

Your idea that I can 'watch out near the water' for tiny snorkels from inside a tank notwithstanding, it's still a very arcadeish tactic and just doesn't fit FH2.

I dont know how long it could stay under water. A Tiger equipped with a schnorkel could dive up to four meters and the Tauchpanzer III and IV could dive up to 15 meters depth.

I have searched for this myself but its nowhere mentioned how long the tank could go without oxygen. However, Tauchpanzers where however equipped with a fresh intake for the engine and the crew.

Well, you could always try to fire upon him.

I think you worry a bit too much about this. You have to keep in mind though that the tank is pretty vulnerable while leaving or entering the water and chances are he has no idea of the situation around him. :)

Mwah, i dont think its all that arcadish, really. Like Fuzzy said these vehicle where intended to land on the beaches while receiving a hot reception.

in the first 500 tigers they build ''diving equipment'' they can dive to a dept of 4-5 meters and it can stay at least 2.5 hours under water i have seen a small video of a tiger underwater on an NGC docu about tanks

Deep Wading Tanks

found this on the net:
Deep-wading equipment for armoured fighting vehicles was developed in the Second World War, to allow them to come ashore and support infantry during an amphibious Landing.
During the planning of the proposed invasion of Britain in 1940 (Operation SeaLion), the Germans developed the Tauchpanzers, modified Panzer III and IV tanks, to be dropped from a landing craft around 1,500 metres (1 mi) offshore. A rubber hose supplied the engine and crew with air and allowed the waterproofed tanks to drive on the seabed up to fifteen metres (50 ft) deep, making it an extreme example of a wading tank. Some were used by the 18th Panzer Regiment during River Bug crossing in Operation Barbarossa
The German Tiger I tank, too heavy to be supported by many bridges, was designed to ford four-metre deep water. This required unusual mechanisms for ventilation and cooling. Submersion required about thirty minutes of preparation. The turret and gun had to be locked in the forward position so they could be sealed.

So no gun ussage underwater

Nonetheless, I think my point was that they were never deployed in a situation where they did a combat underwater assault. From what I understand, when tanks _did_ cross rivers amphibiously, they were prepared, entered the river, left the river, and then readied for "normal" use -- because it wasn't in the middle of a battle. I think the whole discussion is kind of moot.

But PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong -- I would love to see historical evidence of actual combat assaults by amphibious tanks.

Now what I _would_ like to see is allowing tanks to cross shallow bodies of water without taking damage. As General_Henry correctly implied, it's pretty silly that you can't wade through a stream -- for example, when attacking the central island on Philippines with tanks, it's bizarre that a tank should be damaged. Agreed, there ought to be a limit for each vehicle, based on where the engine is, what type of chassis it is, but having cars blow up just because you park them in a few inches of water is...you get the point.