[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
From: "Pete Curran" <petesboyz-at-iinet.net.au>
Subject: RE: modern armour (was aluminum cutting question) [TANKS]
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 14:48:12 +1000
Reply-To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com

How about an M113 with saladin turret as us aussies have done!
Not sure if it is 75mm or 76mm gun
 Also fully amphib
Picture attached

Pete (tank construction halted due to hovercraft construction starting)
Curran

www.angelfire.com/mech/sherman


-----Original Message-----
From: tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com [mailto:tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com] On
Behalf Of Clark Ward Jr
Sent: Thursday, 5 July 2007 12:04
To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
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
:)

-- 
Clark
M60A1 "the Beast" under construction
KI4GYT
--
Why do tankers call infantry "Crunchies"??? Because they ARE!!!

Image050.jpg