T-100 doesn't have coaxial MG. Which doesn't make sense because most modern tanks have a coaxial MG.
- Legacy ID
- Feature Request
Agree, i was quiet surprised when wanted to kill a soldier in front. What was the logic behind that? I suppose it would be a major flaw in real life? Similar situation with M2A1 - no gun for commander...
It isn't modeled either, but they will probably make a version that's more suited for urban combat like the m1a2 TUSK. Maybe they are just meant for long range combat after all, but it's true that the gunner will get bored or dead in urban combat since he has no role really.
Well,still think that commander MG isn't that nessesary.I prefer to remove commander MG on T100,but if they will have coaxial MG,because they're much important,that commander IMO.But well,looks like nothing will changes here.And this sad :(
I don't think anyone now or in the 2030s would design a tank without coaxial armament and a exterior armament for the commander ( for anti-aircraft purposes, and support)
so I think it's realism vs. balancing
"The Merkava has passenger seats."
You know the existence of passenger seats is technically independent of the existence of an additional MG?
War is not fair. The faction's equipment is not supposed to exactly match each other. You might have noticed, the maps are not symmetrically either (as they are in some PVP-Egoshooters).
If you want a thrilling battle, give the weaker site an advantage in terrain, numbers or whatever. But don't try to make the individual units balanced to an assumed "counterpart". There is none.
Well,usually Merkava have 60mm mortar in cargo(Yes it is),but nobody suggest it.Every one want commander RCWS for them.So looks like everyone compare it with M1A2 TUSK,but not with real Merkava.Also many modern tanks have small caliber RCWS,like new T90MS(T90A had 12.7,MS - 7.62),because they're not so much nessesary,as AA MG,well modern helicopters are enough armored to resist 12.7 and have lack of weak spots,modern planes are to fast for them.
Why coaxial MG is nessesary - gunner sight usually have better magnification,that commader sight and allow to fire well accurate,but usage of main gun is inadequate for some kind of targets.
I put an end to this "why coax machinegun is necessary" debate:
Usually the argument against coax I have heard so far goes "but TC have a machinegun, and can engage infantry with that". By using the same logic AT specialist shouldn't have a rifle either, because his squad leader can always engage infantry target the AT specialist sees.
It's not TC's responsibility to engage soft targets.
< / discussion >
BIS, give us the coax already. Or if you keep it this way, at least remove rifles from AA/AT specialists and AT riflemans. You can also remove the rifle from spotter, because after all he's a spotter.
@Gekkibi fully agree.
Someones says that need both commander(RCWS) and gunner MGs.Well merkavas doesn't have commander MGs in RCWS platform.You should turn out to use it.Well in urban combat this isn't good idea.
Same thing with German Leopard2,this is modern tank,but they're doesn't have commander RCWS,but also got MG3 on top.
Probably reason - reability.Usual tacktics for tanks - always load anti-personel/HE/HEAT,if they got danger from infantry,because sabot shell extremely useless against infantry.
If they they see enemy tank - they shoots this anti-personel shell first,and they confuse enemy tank crew(Just imagine - you are rat in tin can,and someone knocking it with sledgehammer),they also may damage electronic,like commander/gunner sight and/or commander RCWS.And then they load and shoot anti-armor shells.
Remember - main weapon of the tank is a cannon,everything on the top is a reserve weapon.And main weapon should have ability to fire at soft targets.
Please - do not copy an M1A2 TUSK.There is a lot of interesting tanks in the world,and no one copy each one.Like:
T-72/T-80/T-90 - autoloader,crew is only 3 mans.Only 300 rounds for 12.7 MG.
T-95 prototype - autoloader and separated crew and ammo.
Leclerc - Coaxial 12.7 and commander 7.62.
Merkava - can carry a few passangers(Like crew of damaged tank),pretty safeful tank.May have a 60mm mortar or extended coaxial 12.7
Well all rest - typically have cannon and 7.62 coaxial and reserve 7.62,except M1 Abrams,they have both 12.7(As AA MG,but now they're useless) and 7.62.And a lot of ammo for them(If typical 7.62 ammo is around 4000 rounds,abrams typically have 23000(AFAIK) and 1000 for 12.7).
I can't think of any MBT nowadays that doesn't have an MG for both gunner and commander. Tanks in arma are pretty bad already without interiors, BIS could do some effort to make them at least enjoyable or fun to use.
@Chairborne "I can't think of any MBT nowadays that doesn't have an MG for both gunner and commander."
Depend what kind.Every one have,but not always on Remote Control System.
Merkava may have up to 4 Machineguns - Coaxial 7.62,Coaxial 12.7(Both Manned by gunner) and 2 7.62 on gunner and loader seats,but they doesn't have RCS.Keep on topic - the problem is T-100.They doesn't have coaxial,thats pretty wiered.
The coaxial gun should be realistically based off the real world tank they modeled the T-100 off of and not just thrown on the tank with the excuse its the future. The caliber should also be looked into. A lot of modern tanks use 12.7mm and 7.62mm caliber weapons on armored vehicles.
^This would be good
Also I agree with ProGamer; 6.5mm seems very small for a tank's ONLY co-axial or AA gun...
In any case I think both the Merkava and the T100 should have 2 guns each and this ticket's upvotes show that most players seem to think the same thing.