Is War! Really that Bad?, Fatum: I moved it here. Let's continue. Options

[Fatum]

Honestly now. If you're arguing that the tank/IFV issue is based on armor, etc., then welcome to my original argument (apparently, the arrogantly ignorant one?). So, either you think it has/hasn't 'tank stats'), or you go by the description (which says 'tank'). Pick one, but don't act like it's my fault you asked a silly question. Jeez, you try to help a guy asking for help…

I suppose that IFVs generally get less armor cause they need to remain mobile while having larger inner volume, and the same kind of engines (at least the same in power-per-unit-of-volume sense). The tank (?) in question gets the stats closer to a Citymaster or the APCs from the German Arsenal than to tanks from Milspectech (which, I believe, we can trust more than War!). Same goes for the cost. It is precisely the conflict between the text, the stats, the upgrades and the cost that made me ask the question. If you think that "pick one or the other and act on that" is a sufficient answer, I thank you for your willingness to help.
The ignorance in your original argument, naturally, wasn't pointing out the stats, but the claim that tanks and IFVs are hard to distinguish, or that the difference is the number of people inside (on which you persist).

The BTR 90 could still be an APC based on it's employment/deployment. I am not that familiar with current Russian Mechanized Doctrine. By Soviet doctrine it would be an APC, by US Doctrine it would likely be an IFV however ultimately the designation it based on the force it was designed for and how it fits into the order of battle for said force. If you had understood my original post it should have been fairly clear that this was the case.

The 90 had me confused on what the BTR line had for armament, not on the combat role of APCs or IFVs. Or tanks, for that matter.
You can continue stating the obvious about the combat doctrine, if you wish.

As to the arrogant ignorance you have accused others of well perhaps you should look in the mirror, everyone is trying to have a discussion, but whether it is intentional or not the tone of your posts fit the moniker perfectly, as exemplified by your latest.

I have looked in the mirror, nothing of particular interest could be seen, just as I'm not seeing much of the discussion besides blatantly wrong "IFVs and tanks are hard to distinguish", blatantly obvious "tanks, IFVs and APCs are easy to distinguish since they fulfill different combat roles, but those depend on the military's doctrine" and blatantly uninformative "you take one side of the controversy you've mentioned or the other, and run with that".
I am yet to see anything I said proved false for me to be called ignorant, besides the BTR line armament, which I was the first to admit not being fully correct in describing.

So true, Irion. However, Faelan's post was very informative, gun ports or not. He explained that the difference between a tank (which we understand to be a tracked, armored vehicle with a big tank gun on a turret) and an IFV (a tracked, armored vehicle carrying troops, but which could have a 'tank gun') is blurry. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) 'Tanks' tend to have more armor and bigger guns, while a faster, less armored IFV might not have a 'tank gun' at all.

The line between a tracked armoured vehicle with a large-bore cannon and a tracked armoured vehicle with a large-bore cannon carrying troops is not a blurry one.
See my example above - when T-72 tanks are converted for carrying troops in Ukraine, they are reclassified heavy IFVs, despite retaining their armouring, armament and tracks.

Lacking any mention of carrying troops, but with multiple references to 'tank', you'd have to assume the vehicle in question is a cheap 'light' tank, in the blurry region. If it were primarily for carrying troops, it'd mention it. This conclusion can certainly be overridden if the stats are overwhelming of the 'light armor, faster' character, of course.

Yes, it lacks any mention of carrying troops. However, as I have already said, I suspect gun ports among the standard upgrades to be one, since the crew-operated weapons are usually mounted on the vehicle's weapon mounts, with the gun mounts providing the temporarily passengers a chance to use their firearms in addition to that. The light tank explanation is ruined by the cost of the Ares Ocelot, which is a light tank and costs eight times as much as the YNT product. However, the price of the Pushka seems more or less in order with the cost of the Striker from MilSpecTech.
Which serves to display how War! is full of stuff that doesn't make sense compared to the stuff in other books, Irion's right here.


Okay, that message's incredibly on the grumpy side. I beg pardon from everyone involved, of course disagreeing with my opinions is not a reason for the kind of tone implied.
Guess the whole "have to support the book which makes no sense" deal had me worked up, in addition to staying up well past midnight; however slight an excuse that may make.

[Yerameyahu]

You're right. I could've been more helpful, but you really slapped me right off the bat. Sorry.

To conclude, I think you have to go by the stats and the description (meaning 'a very light baby tank'), because if carrying troops is the deciding factor, it would have mentioned troops. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Stupid War!, heh.

[Fatum]

I've already found and edited a very nice blueprint of a BTR-T, and since I use blueprints for vehicle illustrations (for now at least), I'll go with that. Make it an IFV refit from an old tank, something like T-030 Dikaya Koshka or T-035 Mstitel...

[KarmaInferno]

The problem you're tripping over isn't about gunports or grenades or names.

It's that you are assuming that the writers have even the slightest idea about real life military or weapons.

Seriously. It's made up by people that largely put in stats cos they "look good".




-k

[Method]

We are talking about a game where magazines are called clips, right? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

[CanRay]

We are talking about a game where magazines are called clips, right? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

RAY SMASH!!!

[Method]

Sorry Canray. Didnt mean to make you go into Incredible Hulk mode... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[CanRay]

At least you didn't make me flash back into my tech support days...

...

Oh damn, did it to myself. If anyone needs me, I'll be crying in my corner.

[Grinder]

And no, I did not "start it", your arrogant ignorance did.

Careful, dude. Ok?