importance of tank HMG gunner

[badmojo420]

Originally Posted by Herbiie

A 1 man operated tank would not better represent the ability of a 4 man crew working together, to be honest, a 4 man crew (there's 1 always in the tank, the loader, who shouts "UP!" using mumble and voip, working together, is a better representation of a 4 crew tank working ... together....

That's not true. After training with your real life tank crew for months or even years, and then being out there all alone with only them to depend on in a warzone, doesn't even come close to what the best PR tank crews can perform.

Of course we can't all relate to military training and whatnot, so just think about it like you have some temp workers coming in to your workplace, and those temp workers have to work together. Then compare their performance against you and 3 co-workers you've known and worked with for years. Which do you think will come out on top?

And beyond that, a tank crew in real life doesn't deal with voip delay, or poor communication standards. Both of which are the leading cause of tank deaths in PR from what I've observed.

Now, you may be looking at it from the tank crews perspective, and yes, a 4 man crew would better represent their real life counter-part. The perspective I'm looking at is the commander/observer role. Ignoring the people in the tank, and just watching its actions and performance, i would say a 1 manned tank(without restriction) would out perform a 4 manned tank.

If you disagree could you explain why you think otherwise. I took the time to explain our point of view on the subject. Least you could do is say more than 'No its not, this is better'.

[DannyIMK]

there should be 4 seats for tank, driver and gunner, commander with machinegun and loader with machinegun(or atleast in the abrams)

[fubar++]

You are talking two different things here: How it is game-wise and how it is reality-wise.

As far as I know the HMG seat is reserved for the tank commander while not turned inside the tank (reality-wise). There isn't actual tank commander in PR (game-wise), only driver, gunner and that extra HMG seat, as the commander optics are used by the driver (which is often acting as commander, at least I am while crewing a tank).

I think there would be more use for the HMG if the tank model would be changed, so both the driver and the man in HMG could use the optics inside the tank. When the man in HMG seat would press the ctrl-key, he would pop his head out and could operate the HMG, and when releasing the key, he would turn inside the tank again. That way you still would have option to use two man tanks (driver/gunner), and three man tanks with actual tank commander (with HMG) onboard.

Hopefully this could be done and haven't been rejected for being hard-coded.

[Spartan0189]

Well, Personally, I usually just have a fully manned tank by Rotation of turret..
Like, The Challenger II has a slow rotation rate, I'd rather have a .50 gunner for those fast incoming targets
Or something like the Abrams, It would be nice to have a .50.
But, also, having it fully manned when the Gunner or Driver times out/gets kicked/so forth, the gunner on the top can switch without the driver getting kicked. or vice versa.

So, more or less, in my point of view, I'd rather have one, because having a fully manned tank is good.

[KingLorre]

if we made the HMG gunner more of a commander and gave him a secondary option (X?) to pull up a binocular and scan the area he would already be more of a help to the gunner and driver and maps like kashan.

imagine this like the COD2 tank missions where when you pressed 'B' you would bring up your binoculars and be able to fire at range. Ofcourse now you do not crew the tank on your own however you would have good spotting capabilities and be able to help your squad as you have a better situational awareness ontop of the tank(IE. bieng able to hear sounds from the outside , detecting incoming fire much easier and having in my experience a bit bigger field of view.)

I'd say, Binoculars for the Tank commander! the tank commander now actualy becoming the HMG gunner instead of the driver.

[Punkbuster]

It of course has a reason so yes it is important.
Why in real life tanks are fully crewed???

[TheLean]

Originally Posted by Dr2B Rudd

if we had 110 players on a server, yes. the 50 would be used and it certainly helps the tank.

but, there are abouts 4 or 5 tanks spawning at the start of the round on Kashan. thats 8-10 men to crew minimally.

12-15, and you start eating in to the personel for th infantry squads, which leaves your team with deficient capping capability.

Also, atm 50cal gunners cannot use binos etc, making him useless in long range engagements. Really we should just shove RWS/CROWs on top of the tanks for a 3rd gunner

also now, only crewmen can crew 50cals on tanks. Which sucks bigtime gameplay wise, since the guy isn't useful most of the time, only if the enemy manage to sneak up on you, or you are suppressing, rather than destroying a contact. (e.g. on the bunkers in Kashan, firing at the door to keep them inside)

+1. With 32 players per team it simply can´t be justified. When playing you should think Where do I help my team the most.

[Herbiie]

Originally Posted by DannyIMK

there should be 4 seats for tank, driver and gunner, commander with machinegun and loader with machinegun(or atleast in the abrams)

The Loader is already inside, after you fire you hear someone shout "UP!" and he's your loader the loader IRL won't be on a machine gun

[Cassius]

What rudd said, also irl everyone is hurdled inside the tank with the top closed most of the time

[J.Burton[EEF]]

I'd agree with a 4th seat idea.