That's another good one, like being able to research a variant of a light tank within 30 days, like you'd research a ligth tank artillery, or tank destroyer or anti air.
Should Armored (Light Tank) Recon really be parachutable?
- Thread starter Kliwarrior
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Airborne Tanks were a novelty in WW2. The M22 Locust was only used in Operation Varsity in March 1945. The Tetrarchs were used earlier, but only 20 were used in Operation Tonga, the British 6th Airlanding Brigade's operation in Normandy and were totally outclassed. IMO, there were major logistical and technical problems with them concept in that timeframe.
1) they could not be airdropped, they had to be airlanded by the Hamilcar glider that needed the largest multi-engine bombers, usually the Halifax to get them in the air.
2) they were totally ineffective in combat vs. Panzer IVs and STGs.
As an Airborne unit commander I would have wanted more mobillity and supply with Jeeps and/or Universal Carriers instead.
1) they could not be airdropped, they had to be airlanded by the Hamilcar glider that needed the largest multi-engine bombers, usually the Halifax to get them in the air.
2) they were totally ineffective in combat vs. Panzer IVs and STGs.
As an Airborne unit commander I would have wanted more mobillity and supply with Jeeps and/or Universal Carriers instead.
- 1
- 1
- 1
In another thread a user dropped a lot units with light tank recon support and merged them to a light tank division.
- 1
Para's are an exploit machine as it is without being able to turn them into Airborne Panzer Divisions.
If the devs were going to spend time on para, then I would much rather them try to implement plausible AI usesage on them.
If the devs were going to spend time on para, then I would much rather them try to implement plausible AI usesage on them.
It really doesn't hurt anything. Paratroopers are pretty awful as it is. Given that its historically inaccurate to have no airborne tanks and inaccurate to have all light tanks droppable, I would rather have them all be.
- 2
Probably shouldn't be allowed but it's not game breaking or anything so it most likely is fine to ignore for now. If something changed that made it much more powerful or flying tanks were added in general then that would definitely be the time to adjust it along the way.
- 1
I have no problem with "droppable" light tanks as members of a support-company; ..... in contradiction to a "droppable" cavalry-recon-support-company
- 1
Guess that's "bicycle" mounted for you. At least the Germans used bicycle cavalry battalions.
- 1
I do not think that the airborne tank will be a variant of the existing tank models, but will have its own differentiated model, such as the amphibious armored or the reconnaissance aircraft. quite possibly the airborne tank hasa single model very possibly for the year 1944
I like the idea of making it one of the clickable variants like AA or AT
That honestly seems like a simpler solution to the Amphibious Tanks thing too...
To have just implemented a little clickable button on the existing tanks.
That honestly seems like a simpler solution to the Amphibious Tanks thing too...
To have just implemented a little clickable button on the existing tanks.
- 1
Once a MtG-style tank designer is implemented, it should include a Para drop module for light Tanks. That would make these tanks able to drop but take a slot that could be used for something else.
- 2