That's how Iraq lost so many of it's tanks. They used T-72s I think or another Russian tank. Basically the M1A1s were able to fire faster.mcgid1 wrote:
One of the main reasons that you don't see that many auto loaders on tanks is that they actually still can't match the rate of fire that one man manually loading the cannon can. With a manual loader it's simply a guy putting the shell in place, with an auto loader it's get the cannon in the right position, have the machine grab the shell, machine puts shell into place, machine puts shell into cannon, machine clears out of the way, and machine unlocks cannon to fire. Last I checked, the russian systems took about 10 seconds to do this, compared to an average of three with manual loading.
and is it not the M1A2 that is in iraq the now...Aardcore wrote:
Does anyone else notice something different about the M1A1 than it really FEELs like as a tank? How about how it looks? What I'm trying to get at is that probably not only just the M1A1, but as well as other tanks, those things should be able to hold more personnel. Don't know what I mean? Dig this:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … 1-pics.htm
As it looks, the M1A1 doesn't have just two guns Main Cannon and Machinegun, but rather, FOUR guns: 3 machine gun placements as well as the main cannon, but most specifically I'd like to point out the two main machinegunh placements on the top. Was this something EA considered and reduced to one machinegun placement for balancing purposes? Or was it overlooked and assumed by the designers that the M1A1 only had one machinegun up top?
Personally I think that would've been kind of cool if there were two gunner placements on the top of the tank turret chassis. Two guys up there gunning down assisting the main tank as it wheels out, that'd feel a whole lot more specialized and take care of the tank as being an efficient capture machine without the assistance of an APC or humvee driven by an engineer to make sure it's being repaired on the go.
I dunno, I was just watching the news and saw footage of the Iraq situation and saw one of the M1A1s and saw two gunner up top. Curious, I had to check it out and it really does have what's sported and has always had those configurations. So whaddaya think?
hold on, DRIVER!! of course:
commnader.
gunner.
loader.
DRIVER.
there, i think thats it
I think it would be pretty cool to have gunner, driver and commander as seperate spots in bf2.. You would definitely need to "squad up" and it would really do away with the lone wolf "tank whores" that bug some people. I would have no problem just being a driver and getting out of tight spots etc.. Ditto on the APC!
also the M1A1 and 2 are fitted or have the advantage of first-shot-first-kill system with all the gyros 'n' stuff which makes them able to fire and manouver at the same time.. compared to the T-72 and T-80ST19AG_WGreymon wrote:
That's how Iraq lost so many of it's tanks. They used T-72s I think or another Russian tank. Basically the M1A1s were able to fire faster.mcgid1 wrote:
One of the main reasons that you don't see that many auto loaders on tanks is that they actually still can't match the rate of fire that one man manually loading the cannon can. With a manual loader it's simply a guy putting the shell in place, with an auto loader it's get the cannon in the right position, have the machine grab the shell, machine puts shell into place, machine puts shell into cannon, machine clears out of the way, and machine unlocks cannon to fire. Last I checked, the russian systems took about 10 seconds to do this, compared to an average of three with manual loading.
A cool idea to me, however it would be a jihad jeep race to C4 the enemy tank rendering them pretty useless. I rarely see an APC loaded up, let alone a Vodnick or Humvee once that tactic came about.
Ptfo
thats the main problem with this game.. the best guys in the game(no including stat-padders) usuallly dont work in a team... a leave the others in the cold, but they lose the element of COMMUNICATION, thats there downfall, they wont see u coming...priznat wrote:
I think it would be pretty cool to have gunner, driver and commander as seperate spots in bf2.. You would definitely need to "squad up" and it would really do away with the lone wolf "tank whores" that bug some people. I would have no problem just being a driver and getting out of tight spots etc.. Ditto on the APC!
It would be cool to have a loader that would get kill assists and stuff. And in order to load you have to press a series of keys in order. Like DDR or something.
There could be a special "loader controller" that was a heavy tube with motion sensors in it! gotta lift and load! hehe..ST19AG_WGreymon wrote:
It would be cool to have a loader that would get kill assists and stuff. And in order to load you have to press a series of keys in order. Like DDR or something.
I think they should get different main gun loads, like HE/HEAT (for APCs), SABOT/HEAT (for other tanks), ATGM (for other tanks or helis - guided missiles fired from T-90 125mm gun) and APERS (anti-personell rounds with a lot of tungsten ball bearings fired out of the 120mm M1A1 cannon - ouch).
Last edited by priznat (2005-12-23 16:18:42)
Would definitely cover the driver ability assists point coverage... I'm still baffled by how that works.ST19AG_WGreymon wrote:
It would be cool to have a loader that would get kill assists and stuff. And in order to load you have to press a series of keys in order. Like DDR or something.
It is not only this tank. As I pointed out in another thread about the Hind, the Mi-17 (MEC transport chopper) should be able to hold 32 people, currently it holds 6. Thier are lots of screwups like this.
This is true and perhaps ONE DAY there will be an instinctive amount of teamwork involved by players who wise up, as for the rest of us, we can only keep on truckin' with the progress and practice we put in as teamplayers and just accept what happens for the glory of the 'team'.A.Drew(G.Drew wrote:
thats the main problem with this game.. the best guys in the game(no including stat-padders) usuallly dont work in a team... a leave the others in the cold, but they lose the element of COMMUNICATION, thats there downfall, they wont see u coming...priznat wrote:
I think it would be pretty cool to have gunner, driver and commander as seperate spots in bf2.. You would definitely need to "squad up" and it would really do away with the lone wolf "tank whores" that bug some people. I would have no problem just being a driver and getting out of tight spots etc.. Ditto on the APC!
OH my God LOL! That thing is crazy to be in and kind of scary, somehow I feel safer in a Blackhawk than that thing... and would you imagine if it did hold 32 people? LOL Dude! Using an AA would be AWESOME. Course if you were on the otherside, not so much, in fact it'd probably discourage people and make half of the opposing team leave or something LOLUmbra Acciptris wrote:
It is not only this tank. As I pointed out in another thread about the Hind, the Mi-17 (MEC transport chopper) should be able to hold 32 people, currently it holds 6. Thier are lots of screwups like this.