FileFront Forums - Tanks that are able to dive...

FileFront Forums (http://forums.filefront.com/)

- FH2 Suggestions (http://forums.filefront.com/fh2-suggestions-486/)

- - Tanks that are able to dive... (http://forums.filefront.com/fh2-suggestions/314211-tanks-able-dive.html)

yeah and look at the winter maps snow = water and on water = damaging vehicles so they'r little bit wrong in how i see it =p

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bunny (Post 3686359)

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.

Good luck finding any information on that. Most of the time you wont read anything other then that amphibious tanks participated in a amphibious operation but that doesnt really answer the question.

That doesnt mean that we shouldnt add tanks like the T-40 amphibious tank and the Type 2 amphibious tank Ka-Mi as they where used even outside of amphibious operations.

Quote:

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.

Agreed.

Quote:

How the tanks react in bf2? (yes, I haven't played bf2, just bf42+FH :rolleyes: cause my comp sucks)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pietje (Post 3686408)

That doesnt mean that we shouldnt add tanks like the T-40 amphibious tank and the Type 2 amphibious tank Ka-Mi as they where used even outside of amphibious operations.

Absolutely. As I said, the Ka-Mi was actually used amphibiously with reasonable frequency; the Ka-Chi was also encountered in combat at Kwajalein in 1944, but I'm not sure whether the amphibious capacity (less than 20 were built) was used. As they entered service after 1942 (1943 for Ka-Chi), I can't see these as more than an oddity.

However, I _love_ the idea of launching a Ka-Mi from a submarine, or the version with torpedoes attached to its hull.

http://www.sam.hi-ho.ne.jp/t_fukuda/...sya/kami_f.gif http://www.sam.hi-ho.ne.jp/t_fukuda/...ensya/kami.gif

(1337 icons, wot?)

Google images has tons of pics of both the Ka-Chi and Ka-Mi puttering around the water. These guys have some info about the Ka-Mi and Ka-Chi:

Japanese Ordnance Material of WW II

If Taranov is paying attention, this is a site with a few interesting tidbits of info about Japanese tanks:

Q&A

As for the T-40, not that many (222) were built and they were only used in 1941 and early 1942. Many more were built as modified, non-amphibious T-60s.

The main thing I'd be concerned about, and what I think Safe-Keeper is talking about, is not so much the existence of amphibious tanks as the absence of realistic circumstances that kept them from being uber-weapons in RL (i.e. the need to deploy stuff, wave conditions, realistic explosive behavior when it hits water, etc.) Aside from the fact that it looks like very very few were used in action, it would just weird me out as excessively arcade-y if you all of a sudden started seeing disproportionate numbers of Tauchpanzers emerging from some random river and shooting up your shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bunny

As for the T-40, not that many (222) were built and they were only used in 1941 and early 1942. Many more were built as modified, non-amphibious T-60s.

Correction 225 where produced and thats alot for a amphibious light tank, though. The PT-76 design was influenced by the T-40. And early in the war Russians produced alot of light tanks due to the fact that it was cheaper and easier to build.

The Russian Battlefield has alot of information about the T-40 but its in Russian and the translation option doesnt work redirects me to the frontpage, damn it.

Quote:

The main thing I'd be concerned about, and what I think Safe-Keeper is talking about, is not so much the existence of amphibious tanks as the absence of realistic circumstances that kept them from being uber-weapons in RL (i.e. the need to deploy stuff, wave conditions, realistic explosive behavior when it hits water, etc.) Aside from the fact that it looks like very very few were used in action, it would just weird me out as excessively arcade-y if you all of a sudden started seeing disproportionate numbers of Tauchpanzers emerging from some random river and shooting up your shit.

Well, i can assure you that your concerns are entirely unnecasery. But i explained this all before. Ofcourse, Tachpanzers arent a high priority compared to other vehicles. Personally, im more interesting in seeing amphibious tanks such as the T-40 and the Type 2 Ka Mi. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pietje (Post 3686482)

Correction 225 where produced and thats alot for a amphibious light tank, though.

NOT FOR ONE MADE OF CARDBOARD WHEN 50,000 KRAUT PANZERS AND STUKAS AND OTHER SUNDRY MURDER MACHINES ARE BANGING DOWN YOUR FRONT DOOR, IVAN. MUHAHAHHAA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bunny (Post 3686508)

NOT FOR ONE MADE OF CARDBOARD WHEN 50,000 KRAUT PANZERS AND STUKAS AND OTHER SUNDRY MURDER MACHINES ARE BANGING DOWN YOUR FRONT DOOR, IVAN. MUHAHAHHAA.

*gasp* Fuzzy has gone BERSERK! RUN, EVERYBODY!!!!!! :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bunny (Post 3684429)

Any tank that I drive can already go underwater. It's just that it doesn't last very long.

I've gotten tanks to fly as well (the notorious 2006 WOLF tank-launch-fest -- we got so good at it that we could pretty well aim where the things were going to land, halfway across the map.)

(Come to think of it, devs, *please* include the deployable machine gun - tank launching bug in FH2. *beg*)

Launching the Ratte is much more fun. ;)

Anyhow, submersible tanks would be interesting. The only problem I can think of is that I don't think the BF2 engine supports shells going into the water, so essentially a tiger can hide in the water with nothing but its turret sticking out. It would be a major pain to take out.

Quote:

Also, don't forget the 1500 amphibious T-38 and the T37 (No idea how many of those were built, probably a few hundreds)!

Generally however, those tanks were meant more for amphibious scouting (a role in which their actual efficiency was limited by rarity of radio equipment), and were seldom used in assaults because of their weak armor and armament.

...Submersible Panzer..

Usless unless we're going across the Channel, and then...

"Sir, ze Voryal Navy hast been spotted, ze Prince of Wales closing in..."

"DIVE! DIVE! DIVE!"

*several divisions of Tigers submerge*

The Invisible Panzer Army!

<.<

Or, the first Luftpanzer division...section of teh Luftwaffle.

I want a Flying Tiger.