When is a Tank a Tank? ....FV432 RARDEN

[BRlCKSHlTHOUSE]

...Probably not when it's an Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

Why is this unique little slice of history in the TANK section? It was an IFV. It was designed to be an IFV. It was fielded as an IFV.

Now, granted, it was bad as an IFV because it lacked space due to the turret being added which meant the Infantry Squad was pretty squashed into the vehicle.... And unlike the Soviets, the West did (and do) care more about the comfort and survivability of their personnel, so it was scraped as a concept. It was meant as a stopgap to convert their cliché Cold War FV430 cube shaped APCs into a cost effective IFV by plopping the 30mm Autocannon from a Fox scout car on it.

But, uh, what gives? If anything, put it in the scout/recon section. But yeah, it was used as an IFV so why is it being classed as a Tank?

[Drug Tino]

In-game it is supposed to be a fire support vehicle. An ad hoc ultra light tank if you will.
Back in Wargame there was a specific vehicle tab for such units and ATGM vehicles etc. But WARNO deleted that category and merged with Tanks.

[Vovin]

Why? Because for some uncomprehensible reason they removed the vehicle tab which was the catch-all for whatever didnt fall anywhere else, which is why we have AT guns and ATGM carriers classified the same as MBTs

[Drug Tino]

I'd say I understand the mix of Tanks and Anti-Tank. But I personally would prefer to have a Support tab for stuff like those Fire Support Vehicles, MPs, fire support teams like HMGs, Recoilless Rifles etc. Would make those more viable and make more space for tanks and line infantry.

[BRlCKSHlTHOUSE]

I'd like it to be a vehicle option for infantry, because it's an IFV

[A Lamp]

Originally posted by Drug Tino:

I'd say I understand the mix of Tanks and Anti-Tank. But I personally would prefer to have a Support tab for stuff like those Fire Support Vehicles, MPs, fire support teams like HMGs, Recoilless Rifles etc. Would make those more viable and make more space for tanks and line infantry.

+1

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by Vovin:

Why? Because for some uncomprehensible reason they removed the vehicle tab

I'm actually glad Eugen removed the "Vehicle" tab, as that may has well been the "Here are all the rejects/throwaways that didn't belong anywhere else" tab in Wargame. :b

At least, when you have AT guns and ATGM carriers in the "Tank" tab, you understand that their role is ANTI-tank.

[[EUG] MadMat]

Originally posted by BRICK SHlTHOUSE:

...Probably not when it's an Infantry Fighting Vehicle?

No, it isn't.
The FV432 is indeed an IFV. The FV432 RARDEN is a Fire Support Vehicle.
Once fitted with the turret, it didn't have room for passengers anymore.

It was meant to be a wannabe tank to bypass international treaty on the number of tanks allowed in Berlin by each nation.
It isn't an IFV, it wasn't meant for recon either. So, what category do we have left?

[BRlCKSHlTHOUSE]

Originally posted by EUG MadMat:

Originally posted by BRICK SHlTHOUSE:

...Probably not when it's an Infantry Fighting Vehicle?

No, it isn't.
The FV432 is indeed an IFV. The FV432 RARDEN is a Fire Support Vehicle.
Once fitted with the turret, it didn't have room for passengers anymore.

It was meant to be a wannabe tank to bypass international treaty on the number of tanks allowed in Berlin by each nation.
It isn't an IFV, it wasn't meant for recon either. So, what category do we have left?

I've been in one, it's claustrophobic for sure which is why the Warrior was made. But it was made to be an IFV. IFVs do provide support for their infantry squad. APCs are not IFV. IFVs are not Tanks.

[Drug Tino]

Originally posted by BRICK SHlTHOUSE:

Originally posted by EUG MadMat:

No, it isn't.
The FV432 is indeed an IFV. The FV432 RARDEN is a Fire Support Vehicle.
Once fitted with the turret, it didn't have room for passengers anymore.

It was meant to be a wannabe tank to bypass international treaty on the number of tanks allowed in Berlin by each nation.
It isn't an IFV, it wasn't meant for recon either. So, what category do we have left?

I've been in one, it's claustrophobic for sure which is why the Warrior was made. But it was made to be an IFV. IFVs do provide support for their infantry squad. APCs are not IFV. IFVs are not Tanks.

So, how many would fit in there? Two guys? Great IFV!

[BRlCKSHlTHOUSE]

Originally posted by Drug Tino:

Originally posted by BRICK SHlTHOUSE:

I've been in one, it's claustrophobic for sure which is why the Warrior was made. But it was made to be an IFV. IFVs do provide support for their infantry squad. APCs are not IFV. IFVs are not Tanks.

So, how many would fit in there? Two guys? Great IFV!

6 non-fatties crammed like sardines, I did mention about 4 times it is a terrible IFV hence why it wasn't continued and the Warrior was made. But being a bad IFV does not change the fact that it is an IFV...

[Drug Tino]

Can you provide historical examples of it actually being used as an IFV with troops riding it into battle/exercises?

[Aegmar]

Originally posted by Vovin:

Why? Because for some uncomprehensible reason they removed the vehicle tab (..)

Totally not incomprehensible. They simplified for a number of reasons, not the least being to be able to give each divisions a distinct character, strenghts and weaknesses. It also makes it easier to balance and avoids ppl analyzing the s**t out of everything to somehow build decks most casualy won't stand a chance against.

[BRlCKSHlTHOUSE]

Originally posted by Drug Tino:

Can you provide historical examples of it actually being used as an IFV with troops riding it into battle/exercises?

Can you provide historical examples of this IFV being a Tank and riding into battle instead of Chieftains?

Such scrutiny over this... Meanwhile Soviet tanks are reversing at the speed of a Ferrari and AMX10s are zipping around with arm values of MBTs and have a 105mm gun that somehow hits harder than every other 105 in the game?

[Drug Tino]

Originally posted by BRICK SHlTHOUSE:

Originally posted by Drug Tino:

Can you provide historical examples of it actually being used as an IFV with troops riding it into battle/exercises?

Can you provide historical examples of this IFV being a Tank and riding into battle instead of Chieftains?

Such scrutiny over this... Meanwhile Soviet tanks are reversing at the speed of a Ferrari and AMX10s are zipping around with arm values of MBTs and have a 105mm gun that somehow hits harder than every other 105 in the game?

If it was not used as an IFV, it was a fire support vehicle. A de facto light tank, yes. It is not supposed to ride into battle instead of Chieftains but as a supplement to them in urban combat. If you can stick a couple of lightly wounded into the back as an improvised ambulance, even better. But that's not something implemented in this game.

Soviet tanks have the reverse speed as a Ferrari? Yes, any vehicle in the game has the same reverse speed as its forward speed. That's a deliberate balancing and symplification choice.

AMX-10 criticism is completely warranted tho. I agree haha.

[BRlCKSHlTHOUSE]

Originally posted by Drug Tino:

Originally posted by BRICK SHlTHOUSE:

Can you provide historical examples of this IFV being a Tank and riding into battle instead of Chieftains?

Such scrutiny over this... Meanwhile Soviet tanks are reversing at the speed of a Ferrari and AMX10s are zipping around with arm values of MBTs and have a 105mm gun that somehow hits harder than every other 105 in the game?

If it was not used as an IFV, it was a fire support vehicle. A de facto light tank, yes. It is not supposed to ride into battle instead of Chieftains but as a supplement to them in urban combat. If you can stick a couple of lightly wounded into the back as an improvised ambulance, even better. But that's not something implemented in this game.

Soviet tanks have the reverse speed as a Ferrari? Yes, any vehicle in the game has the same reverse speed as its forward speed. That's a deliberate balancing and symplification choice.

AMX-10 criticism is completely warranted tho. I agree haha.

If it does not have good reverse speed, it should not have good reverse speed. Right? That's the logic you just used RE: IFV issue.

(except it was an IFV).