.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   TO&Es (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=108)
-   -   Tank carry capacity (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=43254)

Imp May 30th, 2009 02:16 PM
Tank carry capacity
 
What are the criteria for a tank having a carry capacity, normaly of 13 or 6 for a light.
I assumed Reactive armour or VIRSS would negate as would a combination of TI & Laser rangefinder due to not obstructing equipment.
This holds true for most but some for example Leo series can still carry troops at a pinch. Why if the likes of a Chally or Abrams cant? Applies to upgraded M series of tanks to & probably some others. Certainly with the modern stuff which is pretty fast think should err on the side of no capacity, I would not like to be the guy hanging on as the player moves it flat out cross country, bit diffrent from sedate travel down a road. The main time it gets used at least by me is flat out travel to extract or possibly at start of the game before move to contact. Or end game to move by a flag on vehicle unfreindly terrain so again probably going flat out. After all if your tanks in combat mode infantry can pretty much keep up & its a lot safer for them.

Suhiir May 30th, 2009 03:01 PM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
I've always assumed the basic criteria is the size of a standard infantry squad for a medium tank, just because it makes "sense" from a game mechanic point of view. Thus a US Army tank may wind up with a smaller carry capacity then a USMC one ONLY due to the difference in the size of an infantry squad.
Note - I said ASSUME.

I believe Don once mentioned that tanks with reactive armor, and engineer/mine clearing tanks are automatically given a carry cap of zero.

With the Abrams and Leo's I believe it's a matter of doctrine more then anything. These days there are LOTS of APC's, IFV's, and other transport so tanks don't "need" to act as infantry transport. Also while the M60 series had grab bars for infantry as part of it's design the M1's do not.

So sure, while modern tanks could carry infantry...would they as standard practice?

Imp May 30th, 2009 04:39 PM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 693685)
I've always assumed the basic criteria is the size of a standard infantry squad for a medium tank, just because it makes "sense" from a game mechanic point of view. Thus a US Army tank may wind up with a smaller carry capacity then a USMC one ONLY due to the difference in the size of an infantry squad.
Note - I said ASSUME.

I believe Don once mentioned that tanks with reactive armor, and engineer/mine clearing tanks are automatically given a carry cap of zero.

With the Abrams and Leo's I believe it's a matter of doctrine more then anything. These days there are LOTS of APC's, IFV's, and other transport so tanks don't "need" to act as infantry transport. Also while the M60 series had grab bars for infantry as part of it's design the M1's do not.

So sure, while modern tanks could carry infantry...would they as standard practice?
The thing is I think there should be some uniformity to it & there will be the odd exeption like the French High Tech Armored Car you can buy with a small carry capacity in Escort role I think. But it comes in a formation with its riders & I think has reduced ammo to compensate.

Riding a tank with reactive armour or VIRSS would certainly make it an even more dangerous place to be if fired upon so agree its a no on the battlefield though I bet moving up people would still hitch a quick ride. In battle though I would think the practice has died out & was only really a Russian thing. Yes I am sure the odd short trip is still made & if the game could handle the vehicle being restricted in speed with riders on board all well & good. But as said flat out tends to be how they are used so think erring on the side of no carry & getting some uniformity is the way to go.

I am not advocating no riders just feel to frequent as its not an in battle thing at speed unless retreating in which case I would take my chances on the tank to get out of there.

Wdll May 30th, 2009 10:40 PM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
The only case where I would consider it ok nowdays is if after the battle a MBT goes "home" and carries a couple of passing by soldiers or something. Else, it just doesn't make sense.

Skirmisher May 30th, 2009 11:15 PM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
Most of the modern MBT's don't have any carry capacity. Except the Isreali Merkuva.

Most if not all older tanks have some. Not sure why.

Your eardrums wouldn't want to be anywhere near a main gun when it fires.

Imp May 31st, 2009 12:52 AM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skirmisher (Post 693739)
Most of the modern MBT's don't have any carry capacity. Except the Isreali Merkuva.

Most if not all older tanks have some. Not sure why.

Your eardrums wouldn't want to be anywhere near a main gun when it fires.
Thats my point why are Leos exempt, Merkerva can I think supposedly carry a half squad & that strange stretched T-72 Ukraine uses so they are fine. In fact due to game mechanics may carry on the outside never tried.
I can sort of see why M series allowed if as Suhiir said has grab rails but either ban once get TI or alternativly on any tank with a speed over say 16 that has TI that way the player is at least better off using APCs as they are all faster so really would only use in a pinch. Can of course have house rules but its quicker if sorted in game by an arbitery cut off rule. Alternativly give them a lower carry capacity like 4 or 6 as have to be on the rear deck & cannot carry most squads unless trying to extract them or another tank crew which seems the most likely use to me although sending in an APC while tanks cover it would be more logical, but hey its war needs must.

Quote:
Your eardrums wouldn't want to be anywhere near a main gun when it fires.
Be good if main gun firing auto unloaded squad & added 50 suppresion:)<!-- / message -->

Skirmisher May 31st, 2009 12:55 AM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
I think I'd rather walk.

Suhiir May 31st, 2009 03:49 PM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imp (Post 693696)
In battle though I would think the practice has died out & was only really a Russian thing.
Well...old lady memories time again...

I very distinctly remember seeing USMC Grunts riding atop M60 (or possibly M48) tanks as part of the Infantry Training School in 1974-5.
I remember it because I was pissed they wouldn't let us gals try!

Now I can't say one way or another if it was "standard practice"...but every USMC grunt at the time was taught how.

Imp June 1st, 2009 12:42 AM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
Quote:
Well...old lady memories time again...
Now dont be giving your age away:)

As I said sure its done but less so I feel from the 80s which is what the game represents though lesser nations with a lack of transport might well continue to use.
Just want uniformity its up to Andy & Don how they swing it as its their game which is why as you stated M series has grab rails suggested any with speed above 16 as well as other criteria or a reduced capacity. Leos & M series are used by a lot of nations so if they can carry why cant others is what my point was.

hoplitis June 1st, 2009 03:44 AM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
Merkava carries troops internally as passengers not as riders.
Active antitank missile systems is a good enough reason to prohibit "riding" the tank. Higher speeds of MBTs probably plays a role.
But I think that the turret design of most modern MBT is a factor you must take into account. Most turrets are relatively "short" in the vertical but quite sizeable in length and width. They cover most of the upper surface of the tank's hull. Add some "slopping" here and there and I think that you'll find that "riding" a tank isn't so easy as older tanks with smaller turrets and more available "space" on "deck".
As for the game ... as long as the Merkava "perculiarity" is already taken into account, and riding modern MBTs is not a wide spread hobby (:D), no need to change anything. A scenario designer can always change the carry capacity and choose riders or passengers to suit his needs anyway.

Imp June 1st, 2009 08:41 AM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
Quote:
But I think that the turret design of most modern MBT is a factor you must take into account. Most turrets are relatively "short" in the vertical but quite sizeable in length and width. They cover most of the upper surface of the tank's hull. Add some "slopping" here and there and I think that you'll find that "riding" a tank isn't so easy as older tanks with smaller turrets and more available "space" on "deck".
Okay that actually makes a lot of sense & had not thought of, theres more room on top of Leos turret than anywhere else if you were going to ride it.

DRG June 1st, 2009 08:43 AM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imp (Post 693857)
Leos & M series are used by a lot of nations so if they can carry why cant others is what my point was.
BESIDES the Abrams just exactly which tanks that do not have an active defence system don't have a carry capacity?


I've made a note to look at the issue when I have time but I know it's been looked at before . You may note that carry cap still exists with the Challenger 1 but not the Chally 2 becasue of it's active protection systems. ( I have also made a note to check this as well as some tanks like the Chally 2 with VIRSS have no carry capacity but the Swiss Leos with the same system do and I'm betting the Swiss OOB is in error on this issue )

AFAIK the reason the Abrams doesn't have a carry cap even though it has no active defense systems is do to training doctrine. The point is in the case of the Abrams tank riding is not done in RL and why it's not done in the game even though the normal reasons it's not done in the game don't apply and in the day of the M48/M60 this COULD BE accepted pracitce it stopped being so with the Abrams. ( something to do with the blow out roof panels on ammo storage on the turret ? )

Don

Suhiir June 1st, 2009 11:31 AM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
I suspect it's more a matter of :

A) More infantry transports being available.
B) The new "safe" military.

Many things that were standard practice up till the 70's became "too dangerous" in the 80's for many western nations (notibly the USA).

Much like the current trend toward trying to turn HMMWV's into armored cars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRG (Post 693905)

BESIDES the Abrams just exactly which tanks that do not have an active defence system don't have a carry capacity?

Don
May want to change this to "which non engineer/mine clearing tanks that do not have an active defence system don't have a carry capacity?"

*gives a cute smile and bats her eyes*

Imp June 1st, 2009 01:03 PM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
Don
Okay so the Abrams is the exeption due to training the criteria for not having a carry capacity are missile defence or reactive armour. It was the fact the Abrams cant & the Leo can that first struck me as why.

Finland MBT (15) T-55MS has VIRSS & carry capacity is only one I know of that does not conform.

Wdll June 1st, 2009 01:27 PM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
Doesn't the VIRSS cost more than a T-55? lol

DRG June 1st, 2009 05:16 PM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 693931)
May want to change this to "which non engineer/mine clearing tanks that do not have an active defence system don't have a carry capacity?"

*gives a cute smile and bats her eyes*


The reason "engineer/mine clearing" tanks are NOT given a carry capacity should be obvious to anyone with an imagination and that is why I didn't include that in my comment. :smirk:

Don

Mobhack June 1st, 2009 09:28 PM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imp (Post 693941)
Don
Okay so the Abrams is the exeption due to training the criteria for not having a carry capacity are missile defence or reactive armour. It was the fact the Abrams cant & the Leo can that first struck me as why.

Finland MBT (15) T-55MS has VIRSS & carry capacity is only one I know of that does not conform.
I have the seating diagram for an M1 somewhere in the US Army PDF field manuals. I cannot find it but recall several problems, which may be why it is only used non-tactically.

- The engine exhaust causes problems with possible cooked troops. Thus loading and unloading requires care, and not to be done over the rear. So probably only at the halt (no turning tracks to eat troops limbs).

- The M1 has to disengage turret traverse while carrying.

- the section had to sit in a set pattern on the turret top - not the rear engine decks.

Cannot recall if any discussion of the blow out ammo panels not being sat on - as if they had suffered a catastrophic hit that caused the blow outs to pop then the infantry section would likely already be strawberry jam a few milliseconds before that event happened!.

In reality - M1s in combat have enough kit tied all over the turret that the clean configuration required to give some guys a lift is not available. And US formations will have enough APCS and Humvees that administrative lift perched on top of the turret is not needed.

Tactically - the requirement to halt for mounting, take extrem care from exhaust heat, disengagement of the gun turret, and the highly exposed position of the grunts all sat around the rim of the turret, are all bad. Tank riding is just not needed.

Andy

Marcello June 2nd, 2009 01:12 AM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobhack (Post 694020)

I have the seating diagram for an M1 somewhere in the US Army PDF field manuals. I cannot find it but recall several problems, which may be why it is only used non-tactically.

- The engine exhaust causes problems with possible cooked troops. Thus loading and unloading requires care, and not to be done over the rear. So probably only at the halt (no turning tracks to eat troops limbs).

- The M1 has to disengage turret traverse while carrying.

- the section had to sit in a set pattern on the turret top - not the rear engine decks.

Cannot recall if any discussion of the blow out ammo panels not being sat on - as if they had suffered a catastrophic hit that caused the blow outs to pop then the infantry section would likely already be strawberry jam a few milliseconds before that event happened!.

In reality - M1s in combat have enough kit tied all over the turret that the clean configuration required to give some guys a lift is not available. And US formations will have enough APCS and Humvees that administrative lift perched on top of the turret is not needed.

Tactically - the requirement to halt for mounting, take extrem care from exhaust heat, disengagement of the gun turret, and the highly exposed position of the grunts all sat around the rim of the turret, are all bad. Tank riding is just not needed.

Andy
I do remember (unless memory is playing tricks) reading it was actually done in Iraq early in the war, though only few times. It was along the lines of what you describe, 4-5 guys riding on the turret top, to act as extra eyes and tank desant if needed. Note that this was done at the beginning when there were not enough APCs (and, in some cases, even rifles) for everyone anyway.

Mobhack June 2nd, 2009 08:15 AM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcello (Post 694040)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobhack (Post 694020)

I have the seating diagram for an M1 somewhere in the US Army PDF field manuals. I cannot find it but recall several problems, which may be why it is only used non-tactically.

- The engine exhaust causes problems with possible cooked troops. Thus loading and unloading requires care, and not to be done over the rear. So probably only at the halt (no turning tracks to eat troops limbs).

- The M1 has to disengage turret traverse while carrying.

- the section had to sit in a set pattern on the turret top - not the rear engine decks.

Cannot recall if any discussion of the blow out ammo panels not being sat on - as if they had suffered a catastrophic hit that caused the blow outs to pop then the infantry section would likely already be strawberry jam a few milliseconds before that event happened!.

In reality - M1s in combat have enough kit tied all over the turret that the clean configuration required to give some guys a lift is not available. And US formations will have enough APCS and Humvees that administrative lift perched on top of the turret is not needed.

Tactically - the requirement to halt for mounting, take extrem care from exhaust heat, disengagement of the gun turret, and the highly exposed position of the grunts all sat around the rim of the turret, are all bad. Tank riding is just not needed.

Andy
I do remember (unless memory is playing tricks) reading it was actually done in Iraq early in the war, though only few times. It was along the lines of what you describe, 4-5 guys riding on the turret top, to act as extra eyes and tank desant if needed. Note that this was done at the beginning when there were not enough APCs (and, in some cases, even rifles) for everyone anyway.
The section is in Appendix B - Integration of Heavy, Light, and Special Operation Forces (at B-11) in this document:

Quote:
FM 71-123
TACTICS AND TECHNIQUES FOR COMBINED ARMS HEAVY FORCES: ARMORED BRIGADE, BATTALION TASK FORCE, AND COMPANY TEAM
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...123/index.html

Andy

Mobhack June 2nd, 2009 08:19 AM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
Well - B11 was the page in my PDF version - the HTML one does not have pages, but look for a picture of an M1 and Tank-Mounted Infantry heading.

Andy

Suhiir June 2nd, 2009 11:16 AM
Re: Tank carry capacity
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRG (Post 693974)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 693931)
May want to change this to "which non engineer/mine clearing tanks that do not have an active defence system don't have a carry capacity?"

*gives a cute smile and bats her eyes*


The reason "engineer/mine clearing" tanks are NOT given a carry capacity should be obvious to anyone with an imagination and that is why I didn't include that in my comment. :smirk:

Don
I quite agree...it "should be". :angel

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobhack (Post 694020)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imp (Post 693941)
Don
Okay so the Abrams is the exeption due to training the criteria for not having a carry capacity are missile defence or reactive armour. It was the fact the Abrams cant & the Leo can that first struck me as why.

Finland MBT (15) T-55MS has VIRSS & carry capacity is only one I know of that does not conform.
I have the seating diagram for an M1 somewhere in the US Army PDF field manuals. I cannot find it but recall several problems, which may be why it is only used non-tactically.

- The engine exhaust causes problems with possible cooked troops. Thus loading and unloading requires care, and not to be done over the rear. So probably only at the halt (no turning tracks to eat troops limbs).

- The M1 has to disengage turret traverse while carrying.

- the section had to sit in a set pattern on the turret top - not the rear engine decks.

Cannot recall if any discussion of the blow out ammo panels not being sat on - as if they had suffered a catastrophic hit that caused the blow outs to pop then the infantry section would likely already be strawberry jam a few milliseconds before that event happened!.

In reality - M1s in combat have enough kit tied all over the turret that the clean configuration required to give some guys a lift is not available. And US formations will have enough APCS and Humvees that administrative lift perched on top of the turret is not needed.

Tactically - the requirement to halt for mounting, take extrem care from exhaust heat, disengagement of the gun turret, and the highly exposed position of the grunts all sat around the rim of the turret, are all bad. Tank riding is just not needed.

Andy
Ahh ha!
The "real" answer!

Thanks Andy.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.