RE: re-draft the prototype rule ?

["Heidi/Nick Hoke" <kingstonhokes-at-comcast.net>]

Alright, but it still looks silly. Probably to sucker in people who think
like me.
If it had ever made it onto the battlefield, my ancestors would probably all
have been wiped out while futily trying to blow up one of those wheels..

-----Original Message-----
From: tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com
[mailto:tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com]On Behalf Of Steve Tyng
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 11:53 AM
To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
Subject: RE: re-draft the prototype rule ?


Actually the idea has some merit.  With all those wires, you would have to
sever a bunch of them, all in one area, to take a wheel out.  I bet most
shells of the day would have flown right through the wheels without doing
any significant damage.  I doubt the contact fuses of the day would have
gone off by hitting an individual wire.  And remember, while your trying to
cut the wires your being shot at from a high armored vantage point.

The large wheels also give you a good sized ground contact patch without the
complexity of a track system.

Steve


> Subject: RE: re-draft the prototype rule ?
>
>
> All I can say is wow. That Russian tank is the dumbest
> looking thing. One good hit to one of those wheels and it
> would have been a goner.
>
> Nick
> Kingston, WA
> Home of the original TLAR Swampcat
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com
> [mailto:tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com]On Behalf Of William and
> Melissa Johns
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:30 AM
> To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
> Subject: Re: re-draft the prototype rule ?
>
>
>
> After thinking it over, it seems to me that a tank that made
> it to the prototype, but not production, stage ought to be
> given some kind of consideration.  Really, it only comes down
> to the shape of the model - in one shape, it's a Panzer IV,
> in another shape the exact same hardware (motor, tracks, gun,
> etc) is called a Comet, in yet another shape, the exact same
> hardware is called a M-70 and not allowed.  If you close
> you're eyes, you wouldn't be able to tell the various models
> apart, as they'd have identical performance.  A tank that
> never made it into production wouldn't have any advantage
> over one that did.
>
> On the other hand, it does tend to open Pandora's box,
> doesn't it?  Gurps, Mecha, Star Wars, things that walk, ad
> nauseam.  (Why, that would be almost as weird as Tigers
> fighting alongside Comets, or WW I British Mk Vs versus a
> Persian Gulf era M-1 Abrams.)
>
> I'm not reaching any conclusions here, just saying the
> suggestion definitely merits discussion.
>
> Bill "I wanna build a Tzar Tank" Johns
>
> (Tzar Tank:
> http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/5pansar/5sido> r/tsartank1.htm )
>
>
>
>
> At 11:01 PM 7/20/2004, you wrote:
> >At
> 03:12 PM 7/19/2027, you wrote:
> >>But I think a discussion is needed as to why the prototype rule was
> >>added in the first place.
> >
> >I seem to recall that it was to keep sci-fi fantasy tanks
> (Star Wars,
> >etc) off the field.
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >"Action without intelligence is a form of insanity, but intelligence
> >without action is the greatest form of stupidity in the
> world." Charles
> >F. Kettering
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your
> knees." -- Mikhail Bakunin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>