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.
"In war, there are many moments for compassion and tender action, and there are many moments for ruthless action. What is often called 'ruthless' may, in many circumstances, be only clarity: seeing clearly what there is to be done, and doing it. Directly. Quickly. Awake." -- Col. Walter E. Kurtz
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.
How the tanks react in bf2? (yes, I haven't played bf2, just bf42+FH cause my comp sucks)
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.
(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:
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.
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.
"In war, there are many moments for compassion and tender action, and there are many moments for ruthless action. What is often called 'ruthless' may, in many circumstances, be only clarity: seeing clearly what there is to be done, and doing it. Directly. Quickly. Awake." -- Col. Walter E. Kurtz
Last edited by Pietje; May 18th, 2007 at 08:35 AM.
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.
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:
"In war, there are many moments for compassion and tender action, and there are many moments for ruthless action. What is often called 'ruthless' may, in many circumstances, be only clarity: seeing clearly what there is to be done, and doing it. Directly. Quickly. Awake." -- Col. Walter E. Kurtz
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.
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.
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.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
FH2 Suggestions 
.gif "Roll Eyes (Sarcastic) at that stupid method of spelling color")
cause my comp sucks) 
Linear Mode
