1 hour ago, GreatMazinkaiser said:

Ug, an upgrade tax just to make a transport do its job? The real question is whether or not open-topped is paying for transport...

Seeing as the alternative is no transport option, yes.

16 hours ago, Katarn said:

I think they tended to dismount before fighting. Sitting on a massive metal box when churlish folk are firing at you is a sure way to get yourself killed. That said, I'm sure I saw an assault gun somewhere with a MG positioned for someone hanging on the roof/engine block to use.

Maybe they'll make a veteran skill to allow firing accurately from the back of a moving vehicle. Or just create a new stormtrooper class for doing it on account of that being how they solve most other problems. Those guys with the mag boots from Solo could probably do it.

True, a bullet magnet is not the ideal place to hang out in a gunfight, but as you said, it did happen. More than a few cases where a commander was desperate to break through to their objective loaded troops up, and ordered a push through the lines. The tank-borne infantry stayed mounted so as to keep the unit rolling, while still being able to provide some defense against light anti-tank weapons.

1 hour ago, Alpha17 said:

True, a bullet magnet is not the ideal place to hang out in a gunfight, but as you said, it did happen. More than a few cases where a commander was desperate to break through to their objective loaded troops up, and ordered a push through the lines. The tank-borne infantry stayed mounted so as to keep the unit rolling, while still being able to provide some defense against light anti-tank weapons.

Do you have any citations on that? The only thing I've seen from the historical wargaming community is that tanks and other armoured vehicles were used for transport TO the battle, not used in the midst of the actual fight. A single individual manning an attached weapon on a vehicle that is hull down is different than a squad riding in the midst of battle.

4 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Do you have any citations on that? The only thing I've seen from the historical wargaming community is that tanks and other armoured vehicles were used for transport TO the battle, not used in the midst of the actual fight. A single individual manning an attached weapon on a vehicle that is hull down is different than a squad riding in the midst of battle.

Off the top of my head, no. I think I remember reading (or rather, listening) about it in one of Mark Zuehlke's books on the Canadian army from Audible, though if it was one on the Italian theater or Northern Europe I can't recall (leaning towards it being one of the Italian campaign books, now that I think about it). The idea seemed to be based on the commander's perceptions of how tank-borne infantry worked in Russia, and tended to be far less successful than hoped. (with all of the obvious reasons we've already mentioned before) This was a definite case of the infantry riding the tanks into battle, and intending to do so through the battle, not a single guy manning a pintle mounted weapon.

@Alpha17 I can't find any mentions of the Canadians using the tactic, but I did find the proper name for it: Tank Desant. I'll have to look into those books for my commute.

I do know the Canadians in northern Europe converted self propelled guns and tanks into Kangaroo "tanks" which are more akin to armoured personnel carriers than proper tanks. But that's a different situation that what is supposed to be represented with the Occupier in Legion.

12 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@Alpha17 I can't find any mentions of the Canadians using the tactic, but I did find the proper name for it: Tank Desant. I'll have to look into those books for my commute.

I do know the Canadians in northern Europe converted self propelled guns and tanks into Kangaroo "tanks" which are more akin to armoured personnel carriers than proper tanks. But that's a different situation that what is supposed to be represented with the Occupier in Legion.

Yeah, these were definitely tanks (Shermans or Stuarts converted into Honey's) as opposed to the Kangaroos, which were designed to alleviate the problems encountered by tank-borne infantry. Heck, if I remember correctly (which at this point, I very well might not be), the author even compares the effectiveness between tank-borne and Kangaroo-borne infantry assaults by looking at a failed tank-borne assault, and one with Kangaroos. Reading accounts of guys in Kangaroos is just like guys in Bradleys; they're mostly bored and occasionally scared spitless about stuff they can hear but rarely see.

I do recommend Zuehlke's books, especially his first book, Ortona. EDIT: That's Ortona: Canada's Epic World War II Battle, not the shorter Street Fight.