Water Tanker as firetruck

Quote from IITHara

I think, it would be nice, if water tankers were also counted as firetrucks.

When you have mission and need e.g. 3 firetrucks and you send 2 engines and water tanker, it is not enough, because tanker is not "firetruck".

It will be usefull mainly for Europe players, where tankers respond to most fires, because we don't have very good fire hydrants network. Tankers often respond to "small" fires like car fires etc.
And there is tanker at almost every station. About half volunteer fire departments have only one truck - water tanker.

Here in the UK Tankers dont respond as normal fire trucks, they are used as tankers. On jobs that require tankers there are normally 4-5-6 fire engines on scene before hand

In the US (specifically rural but sometimes suburban) a tanker goes on almost all structure fire or medium-sized brush fire calls. There's just not access to hydrants. For the most part tankers have some kind of pump on them that they can work as an engine.

Well the purpose of a Water Tanker is to shuttle water to another rig, more than likely an engine. For a tanker to handle a small brush fire on it it's own is something that I see as unrealistic because in this game, a tanker would be able to act as an engine on a MVA and that's something you probably won't see at all. The tanker is usually coupled with an engine company due to lack of hydrants/water supply in certain response areas. Not as an stand-alone truck able to put out fires.

So could we ask then that it would only act as a second engine if it was dispatched (or coupled) with an additional type 1 or 2 engine? (I'm just thinking that specifically for brush fires but also structure fires in my rural areas where engines have farther to go.)

Quote from IITHara

That's true. I didn't think about it in this way (like you write, tanker would be able to respond to MVA). You are right.
So what about changing some mission requirements?
I mean calls like:
field fire - you must send 2 engines, but can't send engine + tanker.
basement fire - 3 engines, it's not possible to sent 2 engines + tanker.
...
Change requirements to e.g. from 3 firetrucks to: 3 firetrucks or 2 firetrucks + water tanker or something like this

Display More

I think that could be a pretty good idea. I think if you made the tanker coupled with an engine(s) on calls, that would make sense. I just wanted to clarify about what you were trying to explain

Quote from IITHara

That's true. I didn't think about it in this way (like you write, tanker would be able to respond to MVA). You are right.
So what about changing some mission requirements?
I mean calls like:
field fire - you must send 2 engines, but can't send engine + tanker.
basement fire - 3 engines, it's not possible to sent 2 engines + tanker.
...
Change requirements to e.g. from 3 firetrucks to: 3 firetrucks or 2 firetrucks + water tanker or something like this

Display More

Quote from BSOFR12

I think that could be a pretty good idea. I think if you made the tanker coupled with an engine(s) on calls, that would make sense. I just wanted to clarify about what you were trying to explain

Well that's why you group them together in the group menu.

My rural area, My tanker will respond on almost anything. We will respond it to any fires, and when the crews are there, we will take it to gas leaks, mva's. We also take it on fire alarms, our tanker is the 2nd most used piece

Quote from IITHara

Did you even read this topic before you wrote this? Ohodnoť no, you didn't.
It is about using tanker as third, fourth, fifth... engine instead of using 5 engines (for dumb people - you will use 5 engines or alternatively 4 engines + tanker) .
p
So how will coupleing tanker + engines help?

I did read this topic and grouping them together solves this problem that's why I am one of the people who disliked it because this is one of the most stupidest ideas I have ever heard on this forum why change something that doesn't even need to be touched it makes no sense at all a tanker will never be able to replace engines on the scene because it's more of a personal issue not because you want to eliminate 5 engines and make it so only one tanker can respond also it's one of the most stupidest things I ever heard because a tanker doesn't hold enough water to even accomplish this. If you would actually read what I'm saying you and me wouldn't be having this discussion and having problems.

Quote from FirefighterDetroit

I did read this topic and grouping them together solves this problem that's why I am one of the people who disliked it because this is one of the most stupidest ideas I have ever heard on this forum why change something that doesn't even need to be touched it makes no sense at all a tanker will never be able to replace engines on the scene because it's more of a personal issue not because you want to eliminate 5 engines and make it so only one tanker can respond also it's one of the most stupidest things I ever heard because a tanker doesn't hold enough water to even accomplish this. If you would actually read what I'm saying you and me wouldn't be having this discussion and having problems.

so you basically said a tanker is useless because it doesn't hold enough water i believe that is the point of a tanker to hold more water than another unit on the scene plus tankers now are turning into tanker engines now the only difference between a tanker and an engine is the amount and types of hose on the truck

Quote from leutmatho

so you basically said a tanker is useless because it doesn't hold enough water i believe that is the point of a tanker to hold more water than another unit on the scene plus tankers now are turning into tanker engines now the only difference between a tanker and an engine is the amount and types of hose on the truck

The point of a tanker is to supply enough water at the scene to assist other units at scenes that do not have hydrant access not to hold more water than another unit at the scene I never heard of anything called a tanker engine because it barely exists it is custom made by the department it is owned by basically a department that owns it takes a tank from an old tanker and takes an engine and replaces the hose bed with the tank so no not really close at all. Again this is a stupid idea to even consider adding to the game as it makes no sense at all.

Thats because you (seemingly an urban/city firefighter) have little to no experience with the suburban/rural needs. Pumper tankers are actually VERY common, and save departments hundreds of thousands of dollars by combining two units into one. Please be informed if you are going to criticize others.

Actually worldwide fire departments are moving towards having a larger more flexible system which includes the use of a large amount of mixed or combination units and having less dedicated units

Units like
quints(engine and ladder combined)
Rescue engines(engine and rescue combined)
Pumper tankers (engine and tanker combined)

This is the way fire departments are heading the main reason is there getting the same service for less money
take my made up fire department

It has
2 engines 1 ladder 1 tanker 1 rescue at 25 fire houses that's 40 engines 25 ladders 25 tankers 25 rescues all together thats 115 units

Now it can be this
1 rescue engine 1 pumper tanker 1 quint at the Same 25 house is 25 rescue engines 25 pumper tankers and 25 quints that's just 75 units

So these three units are providing the same service for less which means the department can have more trucks in more areas improving respones time so instead of one station a department can have two stations for almost the same price for large cities this isn't really a problem but in smaller departments this is a big deal

Again Pump tankers are barely in existance because the money to combine an engine with a tank from an old tanker is expensive you have to ballast the tank again it's just not very common because of cost so there fore it should not be considered in this topic as not many departments use this as a matter of a fact only a handful of departments use this because they can afford it. Again as stated previously this idea is still plain stupid and a waste of Sabastins time and coding skills to implement if you want to do this by yourself then just do it yourself by sending a bunch of tankers to a scene. Also station cost will not be affects as every building is going to be a different size and for response time that still will not change at all unless you can make a station that covers one side of a city and another that covers the other side but this will only work in small cities ones that are only about 3 miles long and does not have a population of more than 10,000.

you are still failing to see the fact that mixed units are becoming more popular than dedicated units and that includes pumper tankers it should be added to the game as a new unit or changed in the coding(wouldn't be that hard because al he'd do is change one thing from false to true) the stations where an example not fact you will almost never find 25 stations the same i over dramatized it fof the example to make it easier to understand and not to mention that departments are starting to move away from refits because thats starting to cost almost the same as a new rig

After about 20 minutes looking at Google they are becoming more popular they may not be called pumper tankers(many are called engines on the side)so yes it is a good idea to change the tanker or an engine as well or add a new unit

Plus you'd hate this all brush or bush rigs here in australia are called tankers no matter what tge size tank or equipment it gas on board

Not only that, you're missing that we mean. We aren't talking about physically taking the tank from a tanker and putting it in the hose bed. We're talking about buying a new unit with a larger tank and pump system. Just take your losses, accept that you're wrong, and move on.

I don't think it's fair to say anybody is wrong when the topic surrounds the international use of a water tanker. Its use will not be consistent throughout the world. Yes, your local department might use one in a particular way, someone elses area might not use them at all. That doesn't make somebody wrong.

There is an increasing trend of everyone chipping in their thoughts and someone else making a point of stating they are wrong, just because what they are suggesting doesn't match what they are used to knowing or have experience of.

By all means discuss how you feel the tanker should be implemented in the game, but when it comes to matching realistic setups the game isn't going to be able to satisfy how everyone would like the game to be.