This is an idea that has been floated around pretty much since the beginning of the game, and it’s honestly baffling that it hasn’t been added yet. As it currently stands, the only tanks with usable hull MGs to my knowledge, are ones that don’t have a coaxial MG. Why? The hull MG position as it currently stands is basically just a backup crew position that doesn’t really do anything, and it sucks.
It would be very nice if they could all be controlled from the commander’s position or by switching to them, and it would be even better if they were AI controlled. I know some people have communicated that they don’t like that the MG position takes crew priority over loader position, so this should also be changed so that even if they are all controllable, the crew should still prioritize the loader position if you don’t have enough crew or some of them are killed. Additionally, it would be nice if the loader reload speed perk also applied to the machine gunners.
yes to usable hull machine guns no to ai
why br was based on a tank being under players control, b the number of functioning weapons
adding both more weapons and ai assistance would increase the power of almost every tank
and no historical accuracy bs the br was based on the tank as is not a historically accurate tank
ever tank would have to have their br re-evaluated and some maybe even raised
AI hull MGs would by no means be OP, it would literally just make them more realistic. It’s not like they’re laser beams, the AI has limited accuracy, especially at range and especially on the move. It would just mean that players would have to exercise more care when facing enemy tanks, which is realistic because it’s common sense that infantry shouldn’t attack a tank from the front anyway. It doesn’t improve their survivability, it doesn’t make them better against enemy tanks, it doesn’t make them less vulnerable from attacks from the side or behind, and it doesn’t protect them from aircraft. BR is based on all of these things, so a buff in defense from a specific enemy type from a specific angle with AI that doesn’t have perfect accuracy would not be OP.
one it double the number of targets you can engage, two low level tanks br 2 and one are vulnerable to machine guns. 3 i know thats just the start many tanks have multiple machine guns that are not coaxial turret guns (aimed with the main gun an turret). i have no doubt you would wish those ai controlled as well. fair is fair they do nothing or almost nothing against planes, and do not increase armor. also i said some tanks, some tanks are only at there br because of how poorley they deal with infantry. bots while poor infantry would make good tank mg gunners. where wind up would be less of a weakness and reloading would in some tanks be less of an issue.
I can’t think of a single tank that is not good against infantry, and if it’s not good against infantry then it probably doesn’t have a usable MG, and since tanks without usable coaxial MGs actually have usable hull MGs, they would be entirely unaffected by this change. We already have AI gunners on APCs, and they have very much proven that they aren’t all that accurate. There are very few tanks that are actually vulnerable to machine guns, and the ones that are are almost all either tank destroyers with exposed crew or armored cars, not fully enclosed tanks, and even of these very few of them can actually be penetrated from the front. It can take a long time to kill enemy tanks with MGs, and more importantly, if you have your side or back to the enemy’s front hull you’re probably dead anyway. Even if you’re in a tank that can be penetrated from the front, if you’re face to face with another tank it’s gonna come down to main guns and reaction time 99% of the time, so the machine guns are pretty irrelevant in tank-on-tank combat.
apc are glass cannons that cannot take hits from anything meaning its fine for apcs to use ai. they also us infantry weapons again making there firepower far mor limited. the t-28 is not an open tank destroyer and is vulnerable to mg fire.
in real life tanks were not capable of using their main gun to swat infantry at point blank range. take away the ability of tanks to shoot from the gray zone and hit targets outside and you can talk about realism.
What are you even talking about? The T-28 is absolutely not vulnerable to machine guns at all, especially not from the front. The only machine guns that would be able to piece the T-28 would be heavy machine guns like the M2 Browning, DShK, 13.2mm Hotchkiss, and maybe the MG 131, and there isn’t a single tank in game that has one of those in the hull. And tanks irl were absolutely able to kill infantry at close range with their main guns if they knew they were there. They might destroy the gun if they fire point blank into a wall, but other than that there’s no reason why they can’t engage targets at very close range, other than gun depression limiting how close they can shoot on flat terrain, which is already a thing in game anyway.
It should do light damage to the tank if the shell is actually hitting that close to the tank, but if it’s hitting further than that and you’re just getting killed by the splash damage then that’s different. Also there’s no way you should be getting penetrated by anything short of a .50 cal in a T-28, it has 20mm of side armor, even on the MG turrets, and infantry machine guns only have 1mm of penetration max. You sure it wasn’t an aircraft MG or an autocannon from a light tank?
never said infantry, and the game tells you what killed you, so unless ac fire like mg and are called mg kills? pleas tell me of tanks that killed soldier with there cannons who were within arms reach. Hands under chin
The cool thing about high explosive is that it’s explosive. You can kill infantry with splash damage if there’s something like a wall or tree or barricade to shoot nearby, or if the gun has enough depression.
