[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Martin Helsing <martin.helsing-at-earthlink.net>
Re: modern armour (was aluminum cutting question) [TANKS]
Wed, 4 Jul 2007 22:14:26 -0400 (EDT)
If bradleys and other APCs and IFVs are to be limited, would they be alowed then to
function as intended - i.e. carry something other than their own offensive weaponry?
Some thing I had thought of that these types of vehicles seem to have in common is a
combination of missiles and cannon.
Would the "multiple weapon" ruling allow you to have # of tubes based on your ATGM
launcher(s) and have a reduction in ammo capacity for your main gun? For example the
bradley would have two tubes for its dual TOWS and then 28 rounds for its cannon.
You would still have to fire either rockets or cannon.
>From: Clark Ward Jr <ki4gyt-at-gmail.com>
>Sent: Jul 4, 2007 10:03 PM
>Subject: Re: modern armour (was aluminum cutting question) [TANKS]
>I think we'll have to get a ruling for The Powers That Be on this one.
> I still think no APC should go higher than a 2. Even the Centurion
>tanks that the Israelis converted to APCs still have an open fighting
>compartment. If the ruling comes down and it's a 3 for APCs, I'll go
>with it, but calling an inch or two of aluminum _armor_ is quite a
>stretch for me :)
>I definately think the Bradleys are cool looking and would be neat on
>the battlefield. Imagine arming the TOW launcher for your cannon, and
>getting vehicle-down behind a piece of terrain like the real ones do
>M60A1 "the Beast" under construction
>Why do tankers call infantry "Crunchies"??? Because they ARE!!!