As you can see, there’s still plenty of space inside, and its 37mm gun isn’t particularly powerful either.
3 Likes
Maus or TOG II APCs when?
3 Likes
No
they are not for transport use
7 Likes
Its a closed tank without any hatches for soldiers to quickly dismount.
All the hatches that do exist are just for their own crew and would be really inconvenient for passengers to use.
1 Like
That was also my suggestion along with Soviet M3 Medium being able to be used as APC in high BR.
Better add Aligator variant as APC
9 Likes
They… quite literally were?
More so of a fantasy suggestion because obviously they won’t alter old squads let alone premium.
Not this variant of the LVT.
The LVT with the gun was pure fire support to support the othere actual landing crafts.
2 Likes
Don’t make me laugh, lol.
They have a model for it already in pacific maps. Just needs animations and finishing touches
1 Like
I always felt that this initial bundle with the release of the Pacific was a huge wasted opportunity by not introducing APC’s for the first time back then. I also like the idea of Ka-Chi for this role too. But now I understand that these two weren’t technically personnel carriers in real life and were more support vehicles. It’s interesting to know that fact. But here in Enlisted, the rules of what makes an APC are quite flimsy and they don’t exactly follow a logic. Ever since they introduced the Stummel Hanomag, which has a literal small howitzer more powerful than the LVT and Ka-Chi, I don’t see a reason why this two vehicles couldn’t have been APCs back then.
Although it would be a very drastical change (not that they haven’t done drastical changes in the past before, but this is different) and sadly they probably wouldn’t bother to make a change such as this for a discontinued squad.
1 Like
Of coarse an infantrymen will hitch a ride on just about anything. But if we’re going by actual job/ role, no the LVTA-1 was not a transport vehicle.
The same with most halftrack variants
If its job is to carry infantry, its a APC, if not its a combat vehicle
Yes I will keep asking to correct the 251/9 II