Re: modern armour (was aluminum cutting question) [TANKS]

[Martin Helsing <martin.helsing-at-earthlink.net>]

-----Original Message-----
>From: Clark Ward Jr <ki4gyt-at-gmail.com>
>
>Actually, those aren't MBTs :)  They're all light tanks, basically
>because any heavy weapon will cleave one hair-to-heinie.  I love 'em
>all, but I wouldn't want to fight any tanks with them.
>
right. my bad. i used "mbt" to denote a vehicle that did not carry soldiers, rather 
only a gun and/or missiles. I'm looking for a distinction that woudl just ify 
altering the defensive rating for a group of armored vehicles that seem more 
vulnerable IRL than the design specs for RC Tank Combat indicate.

On the other hand, something to remember is that the main purpose of these 
"alum-clads" is to transport infantry into battle and provide a modicum of fire 
support for said troops. In RC tank combat, you have to choose - transport or fight. 
If you have a bradley that will carry troops, it will be reduced to 0 offensive and 
1 defensive. If you want a gun, having a 30/3 rating seems fair. Its big and tall. 
The vehicle does not present any inherent advantages. Its just a cool tank.

BTW: (1)Yes I frequently flip-flop my opinions (2)I am not running for office of any 
kind :-)

Deep Thoughts by Martin Helsing
USMC M1A1HA under construction