Tanks with snorkel

[Mizzar]

since some tanks have a snorkel to stay a under water, why isnt that a mechanic? i think it would be cool and funny to maybe hide underwater then go out, it can be interesting if added correctly and if maps make use of this.

[mogami_99]

The snorkel is not so the tank can stay underwater. It is so the engine can get air to function. The turret stays above water. These vehicles often had inflatable skirts.
So many tanks with snorkel were lost trying to reach shore during amphibious landings.
There are however a number of ground vehicles that can operate in water already in the game.
They are not however submersible

[nirvana_sth]

Originally posted by Mizzar:

since some tanks have a snorkel to stay a under water, why isnt that a mechanic? i think it would be cool and funny to maybe hide underwater then go out, it can be interesting if added correctly and if maps make use of this.

its for deep water fording.
so in real combat situations, sometimes tanks need to cross rivers, and there might not be a pontoon bridge or crossings available. why would you need it in this game? this game is quite fast paced, and the maps are designed that such a crossing is never an issue.
"if" they added the function, other ppl will complain, as it seems only soviet tanks have this functionality and the rest will get jealous.
it happened when they added dozer blades... jesus how forums were filled with ppl complaining about this very useless feature.

[mogami_99]

Originally posted by nirvana_sth:

Originally posted by Mizzar:

since some tanks have a snorkel to stay a under water, why isnt that a mechanic? i think it would be cool and funny to maybe hide underwater then go out, it can be interesting if added correctly and if maps make use of this.

its for deep water fording.
so in real combat situations, sometimes tanks need to cross rivers, and there might not be a pontoon bridge or crossings available. why would you need it in this game? this game is quite fast paced, and the maps are designed that such a crossing is never an issue.
"if" they added the function, other ppl will complain, as it seems only soviet tanks have this functionality and the rest will get jealous.
it happened when they added dozer blades... jesus how forums were filled with ppl complaining about this very useless feature.

Actually every country other then Israel has at least one amphibious vehicle. (I didn't look at Israel they may in fact have one)

[nirvana_sth]

Originally posted by mogami_99:

Originally posted by nirvana_sth:

its for deep water fording.
so in real combat situations, sometimes tanks need to cross rivers, and there might not be a pontoon bridge or crossings available. why would you need it in this game? this game is quite fast paced, and the maps are designed that such a crossing is never an issue.
"if" they added the function, other ppl will complain, as it seems only soviet tanks have this functionality and the rest will get jealous.
it happened when they added dozer blades... jesus how forums were filled with ppl complaining about this very useless feature.

Actually every country other then Israel has at least one amphibious vehicle.

isn't amphibious like Shturm which can swim on the water?
i think west didn't go with deep water fording on mbts because they thought they have the ability to build good pontoon bridges very quickly. soviets on the other hand were like nope.
ive never seen an abrams with deep water fording equipment?

[mogami_99]

Originally posted by nirvana_sth:

Originally posted by mogami_99:

Actually every country other then Israel has at least one amphibious vehicle.

isn't amphibious like Shturm which can swim on the water?
i think west didn't go with deep water fording on mbts because they thought they have the ability to build good pontoon bridges very quickly. soviets on the other hand were like nope.
ive never seen an abrams with deep water fording equipment?

Back in 1996 USMC (because they are amphibious) did fit snorkels to M1 Abrams. So they could drive off landing craft while still in water.

[nirvana_sth]

Originally posted by mogami_99:

Originally posted by nirvana_sth:

isn't amphibious like Shturm which can swim on the water?
i think west didn't go with deep water fording on mbts because they thought they have the ability to build good pontoon bridges very quickly. soviets on the other hand were like nope.
ive never seen an abrams with deep water fording equipment?

Back in 1996 USMC (because they are amphibious) did fit snorkels to M1 Abrams. So they could drive off landing craft while still in water.

oh wow nice!
thanks for the info :)
also off topic here, but i heard USMC gave up all of its heavy equipment such as tanks etc. to US.Army!?

[mogami_99]

Originally posted by nirvana_sth:

Originally posted by mogami_99:

Back in 1996 USMC (because they are amphibious) did fit snorkels to M1 Abrams. So they could drive off landing craft while still in water.

oh wow nice!
thanks for the info :)
also off topic here, but i heard USMC gave up all of its heavy equipment such as tanks etc. to US.Army!?

Yes the USMC is no longer to take part in land combat other then Amphibious operations.
Army heavy and lethal
USMC light and flexible
(although I believe a hidden reason is recruitment the Corps is unable to sustain the manpower for many of the now disbanded units. )

[Der Lachende Mann]

Originally posted by mogami_99:

The snorkel is not so the tank can stay underwater. It is so the engine can get air to function. The turret stays above water. These vehicles often had inflatable skirts.
So many tanks with snorkel were lost trying to reach shore during amphibious landings.
There are however a number of ground vehicles that can operate in water already in the game.
They are not however submersible

Leopard 2 wading underwater with snorkel
If there is no bridge this is always an option.

[Gold Merchant Lev]

I don't see why not. It will be useless mechanic but cool to see. Although maybe not, look at the amphibious vehicles in the game, completely useless and if you do attempt to go into a calm looking lake or whatever it suddenly turns into Category 5 hurricane conditions on the water.

[<I^_^]I_1C3Qu33n_X33_I[^_^]>]

If they werent so lazy, they could easily make alot of tanks floatable especially shermans and certain japanese tanks, also serveral in the soviet tree, for example the 2S1.

But i guess you need to wait for submarines if you want to go underwater, this will also never happen.

[Mizzar]

Originally posted by Gold Merchant Lev:

I don't see why not. It will be useless mechanic but cool to see. Although maybe not, look at the amphibious vehicles in the game, completely useless and if you do attempt to go into a calm looking lake or whatever it suddenly turns into Category 5 hurricane conditions on the water.

They end being useless because Gaijin doesnt make use of it, they just map ♥♥♥♥♥♥ open maps where is a death corridoor.

There is a map where i often see amphibious tanks get on a "op" spot only they can get to.

That map with a city and a lake , if you are on the north side you can cross a river and get into a tiny "mountain" having the high ground, i always see BMPs, and other amphibious tanks sniping from there

[j.yellow28]

its ,pretty uselesds and irl took hours to set up.
As well as removies the point of having "Amphibious" vehichles

[Mizzar]

Originally posted by j.yellow28:

its ,pretty uselesds and irl took hours to set up.
As well as removies the point of having "Amphibious" vehichles

well ofc its a game and it wont took hours to set up and not all tanks have these snorkels.
i still think it would be a cool detail but not a very used one due how maps are designed.

its like using the Dozer, cool and interesting mechanic but not very used since at the brs you unlock Dozers you will likely get oneshoted by apfds anyways.