[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
From: <funkyneroc-at-ntlworld.com>
Subject: Re: Re: musings on infantry [TANKS]
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 22:59:00 +0100
Reply-To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com

The thing is ,building a tank was hard enough,
But infantry ? !
It would take a very patient and high tec builder a long time to build something 
that could be smashed in moments by a collision with a tank, Im out .

Neil "robust is best" R
> From: Martin Helsing <martin.helsing-at-earthlink.net>
> Date: 2007/07/04 Wed PM 10:04:04 BST
> To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
> Subject: Re: musings on  infantry [TANKS]

Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
A supply vehicle can carry 40 paintballs, 1 battery, 1 C)2 cylinder or 4 soldiers.
Can it also pull a trailer?
Take a jeep pulling a trailer. Mount 4 soldiers on it, each with a rocket launcher (bazooka, Carl Gustav, RPG-7, take your pick). Put a trailer behind it with 40 paintballs.
For construction purposes, would it be acceptable to have all 4 soldiers run off of long extension cords for firing purposes? They would basically plug into the jeep.
They would all have individual rocket launchers but would have the pressure fed to them from a common solenoid and co2 tank. Each would be placed on an individual soldier so that the weapons would still be part of the grunts and not the jeep.
Would a setup like this be OK?
The jeep would solve the mobility issue and using a team of soldiers means the components needed to make the launchers can be split up between them.
More Deep Thoughts by Martin Helsing