Theoryside: Will AA tanks be effective against infantry?

[ArmaGetItOn]

The Ostwind in company of heroes, the Tunguska and LAV-AD in battlefield 3, they are AA tanks effective against both air and infantry. (though there wasn't any air targets in CoH, but the Ostwind's primary purpose was AA...)

Normal tanks are effective against both infantry and ground armor. Why shouldn't AA tanks be effective against both infantry and air? It's a fair tradeoff, imo. Trading one effective target for another, instead of trading 2 effective targets for one.

Normal tanks: Effective against infantry, ground armor. Ineffective against air.
AA tanks: Effective against infantry, air. Ineffective against armor.

What do you think?

[acosmo]

i doubt they'll be ineffective

[ArmaGetItOn]

Originally Posted by acosmo

i doubt they'll be ineffective

What do you mean by that though? A skyguard does damage to infantry, but it's far from a good way to kill infantry. Do you consider no damage ineffective, or negligible damage ineffective?

[Zulthus]

Switch the Skyguard to its chaingun and it kills infantry perfectly fine. It's pure logic that a 100mm explosive tank shell does more damage to infantry than blunt flak that doesn't explode if it isn't near an aircraft.

[Vash02]

AA guns shouldnt be able to depress enough towards the ground on a level plain so it would be pretty much pointless trying to shoot at infantry unless they are above you. A bit like the sundy except your shells wont arc down as much.

[SgtMAD]

the AA on the tank is a secondary weapon, the main cannon is still there so it will be just as effective against armor either way.

[ArmaGetItOn]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

the AA on the tank is a secondary weapon, the main cannon is still there so it will be just as effective against armor either way.

I was lead to believe that AA would be a loadout choice over main guns on tanks. And who says AA has to be flak? Could be autocannons instead.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by ArmaGetItOn

I was lead to believe that AA would be a loadout choice over main guns on tanks. And who says AA has to be flak? Could be autocannons instead.

Nah AA is a secondary gunner choice. For reference, look at the magrider images showing the AA, AI, and AV secondary guns. They all still have the main cannon for the driver.

Regarding AA vs infantry I could see it doing damage, but I doubt it would be effective compared to say the main cannon or the AI choice.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by ArmaGetItOn

I was lead to believe that AA would be a loadout choice over main guns on tanks. And who says AA has to be flak? Could be autocannons instead.

AA/AI/AV is a choice on the secondary tank gun. the main gun being the heavy hitting, slow refire AV/AI gun.

[Marth Koopa]

Good gravy, the Tunhuska... what an overpowered piece in Battlefield 3. Whenever I play on that map that has it, I haul ass to that thing to get it(one of the things I hate about small scale shooters with vehicles, spawn hogging) and I just camp at the edge of the dock.... it's basically impossible for me to die because I kill everything so easily.

[Sifer2]

Like the guy above said the best way to try an balance the secondary AA turret on the Tanks will be to have it angled upwards. So it can't really aim down far enough to hit Infantry at ground level. Would probably help keep it from becoming the new BFR.

[LongBow]

most AA weapons will be flak - if you can't make it explode the weapon will be "almost" useless.

and at the end of the day w/e damage an AA gun does to infantry it will be no match for the role specific AI gun.