Modern combat : is it out..?
- Thread starter soulman
- Start date
I know nothing about the USMC or the M113 but on their Marine Veteran site is appears that they had them and want the M113 back.
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18282
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18282
captainsmirk
Mongoose
Whilst the site is for USMC veterans the actually post doesn't mention the marine corps once and only talks about the army...
Nick
Nick
I'm somewhat further down the food chain in the defence industry, but from all my interactions with the DPA (or whatever they're calling themselves this week) and various defence contractors, it strikes me as entirely plausible 
It's quite sad from the point of view of the service personnel that their seniors, under the pressure of the cold war establishment (which we can only hope has been swept away to a great extent) were not putting forward the best kit available due to political/financial reasons.
I say I hope that it's being swept away, but I was reading an article earlier today on the US treatment of testing of Dragon Skin combat armour that makes me wonder if we have moved forward at all.
It's quite sad from the point of view of the service personnel that their seniors, under the pressure of the cold war establishment (which we can only hope has been swept away to a great extent) were not putting forward the best kit available due to political/financial reasons.
I say I hope that it's being swept away, but I was reading an article earlier today on the US treatment of testing of Dragon Skin combat armour that makes me wonder if we have moved forward at all.
Some would say yes, some would say no. It depends on your point of view. There's forces that want to do away with high price tag pieces of tech, favoring current models or less capable things. Others want to get rid of certain groups so the DoD will be quicker in adoption of new technology...
Lorcan Nagle
Mongoose
Should be getting my copy in about a half an hour...
tiepilot1138
Banded Mongoose
I got my copy today and it looks very nice. I was pleasantly surprised by the variety of units to pick from (and my marines/army now have anti-tank capability!)
Now if I could only get my AAVP-7's in...
Now if I could only get my AAVP-7's in...
Jean-Charles
Mongoose
I need the pdf quick for make a second MEA army after my british, quickkkkkkkkk
along with the panthers and especialy the vikings 
dsfrankevo
Mongoose
Mr Evil said:
The same reason that the Tiger I is faster than the Sherman in WaW
&
The T-72 is more expensive than the more capable Zulfqar :?
Editing on the whole has never been the gaming indursty's strongest skill set
I bet the next set of rules each of us buys will have some errata as well - its like fries with your 'happy meal' you get it weather you want it or not
Mr Evil said:
Not a misprint - if you add a second MG to a Technical, the two weapons become greater than the sum of their parts (a Technical with 2 MGs is quite a fearsome - if fragile - beast). We took the assumption that the first one added would always be the turret arc.
msprange said:
hmmmm so you pay less for 360 arc of fire... by the way the missprint is the fxf.... there is no such trait in the new rules
what if my conversion had a forward only MG then id be forced to pay more points for it.. seems a tad unfair..... it should of been done the other way around,,,, that way to save points peopel could reduce the arc of fire and effect of thier technicals....
127th Angry Angels
Mongoose
Mr Evil said:
Not really the rules fault what you've converted. Besides, as long as you inform your opponent and have paid the points it's irrelivant. I'd have no problem with this if you could show it on your list even at tourny.
I like to think that people have a common sense approach to this. Also, does mongoose even have WYSIWYG rulings in their books?
