What's stopping Tanks from having a Machine gun?

[Sky]

Time for a little discussion.
In my experience with Tanks, They usually always had a Machine gun for fighting infantry unless they were ultra specialized or had a separate variant sporting MGs. But even then, I believe that ALL Armored fighting vehicles had a minimum requirement of a machinegun other wise soldiers were basically driving around in a glorified Armored truck.
But I digress, Im not a complete expert on this.

The point I wanted to discuss is:
"Why shouldn't our tanks sport a Machinegun?"
Because it would be Overpowered? I think that's silly, because you generally try to avoid being in the sights of a tank anyway due to how much raw firepower and armor it brings to the fight.
Its supposed to be overpowered, which is why you would bring dedicated Anti tank weapons or tactics to fight it.

The reason I question this is because once a Tank runs out of shells, Their only means of fighting is the Pistol of a Commander, and Running over Infantry. They must rely on infantry to fight other infantry because...Generally Tanks in foxhole shouldn't fire on infantry. Their shells are Expensive. and using them on Soldiers is a Waste compared to blowing up defenses.
Without Shells, They just Sit there as Cover for the Infantry, Or Run away to get more Ammo, thus stopping an Infantry advance because they have no cover (The Tank Being Cover) against All the Fortifications.

Which then leads me to question...
Why spend so much on a Tank then?
A Half track does the same thing for cheaper.
It uses Only Rmats to Build, no need for Tech parts for a Workshop, And Relys Solely on 12.7 rounds which is relatively easier to get since it only uses Bmats...
And Still Blocks Hostile gunfire.

So what do you think?
Do you think Tanks should get a Machinegun that only the Driver can fire out the Front?

[peremptor]

BALANCE. Actually to be honest with you it might just be too hard to implement, who knows.

[Do_Be]

I think the tank has its role and so does the halftrack. A tank with shells in the right hands is devastating. having one of each roll up on you is a very intimidating experience.
If you gave a tank an HMG i feel it would need to be operated by the one who operates the shells because being able to simultaneously use both would just be way to overpowered.
I also think the tank the way it is now is important for really keeping halftracks relevant. The game currently does a pretty good job of keeping all items in game relevant.

[crashonwar]

this tank being the light vs the medium and heavy tank will 'maybe' fix this weakness

ht already on the field mean there already anti infantry,so no real need for more

[Formalhaut]

More like

allow people to use the LMG in motorcycles

itd be lit

[glythe]

Given the cost of the tank I think it would be fine to have a HMG.

I would also love to see LMG on the motorcycle (like maybe a higher tier version).

[Yodarkore]

Originally posted by peremptor:

BALANCE.

This. That would make halftrack more or the less useless (at least when you can build tanks).

I'm tankist driver in many games, and yes, that battlefield like MG miss me a lot sometimes. But i would prefer the tank having more acceleration (and inertia too) than an MG as it would be really really OP trust me.. ;)

Edit: balance wise, it makes me more sense to add a LMG on the sidecar seat of the bike than adding one to a tank. I would prefer a smoke discharger over an MG on foxholes tanks if given the choice.

[Sky]

So in hindsight, its really a matter of Balance and to Keep Halftracks Viable.
That makes sense.

Smoke Discharger on Tanks and Biker LMGs instead...
Ive been watching a few videos of Tanks in Foxhole supporting an Infantry assault, and I can somehow see the Usefulness of having a Smoke launcher on Tanks to assist Infantry assaults.
on the other hand though...Wouldn't having a Tank Commander Toss Smoke grenades be the same thing?

Biker LMGs though...That would be good for Assaults Honestly.
They can Keep Pace with an Infantry Push, and not get Bogged down too much because of the HMG weight.
Though...wouldn't that make FMGs somewhat Lackluster?
You can make Bikes Cheaper and Immediately from a lvl 1 Vic Factory and since they move faster on roads, its so much faster to bring a bike to the front than push an FMG up there.

...At least until they implement Towing...

[NorthernPixels]

Crashonwar is correct. Heavier tanks will likely have more mounted weapons when they come down the road.

[Yodarkore]

Originally posted by Synoptica:

Wouldn't having a Tank Commander Toss Smoke grenades be the same thing?

You cant toss any grenade as tank commander. Only binos and pistol so far, afaik. I dont use often a commander on my tank he get sniped way too fast i prefer having him on foot with the infantry or on another vehicle (HT or tank).

Originally posted by Synoptica:

Though...wouldn't that make FMGs somewhat Lackluster?
You can make Bikes Cheaper and Immediately from a lvl 1 Vic Factory and since they move faster on roads, its so much faster to bring a bike to the front than push an FMG up there.

...At least until they implement Towing...

Maybe, maybe not. They do not use same ammo FMG use 14.5 while an HMG use 12.7
So far i think the FMG does more damage to structures than current HMG does. And in any case the bike is easily destroyed by gunshots while FMG can only be damaged by sustained damage, and not by light weaponry. Best counter to FMG is frag launcher, best counter to a bike is good accuracy with any weapon. And the bike would still need 2 crew if armed.

Originally posted by Northern Pixels:

Crashonwar is correct. Heavier tanks will likely have more mounted weapons when they come down the road.

I hope when you implement heavier tanks you will increase light tank acceleration/inertia ^^
And smoke discharger on cooldown would be really cool feature, with a 45s-60s cooldown to avoid mindless imbalanced smoke spam :)