So as90=not m109. And both=useless
On Jun 2, 5:38 pm, Derek Engelhaupt <[email protected]> wrote:
> A "howitzer" is capable of direct fire even though it is classified as
> artillery. Direct fire is discouraged due to the fact that you must see
> your enemy to use direct fire. Since you can see your enemy, the enemy can
> see you and therefore direct fire back. Self-propelled artillery has
> thinner armor than say a tank. Consequently, direct fire is unwise using a
> howitzer due to the lack of armor protection. Nothing says it can't direct
> fire. They can and do direct fire and it is becoming more and more common
> on the modern battlefield. In our hobby, that would mean it's a tank. It
> would be a tank with a low defense factor. They would be rated at like a
> 2/40 (2 hits takes it out of action with 40 paintballs in the magazine) or
> in some rare cases a 3/40. That would be why I would not build a SPG. For
> me, it's a simple matter of the low defense factor. The Paladin is simply
> an M109A6. So yes, it is an M109 that has been through multiple stages of
> upgrades over the years. The M109 had no name (like a Sherman or Bulldog,
> etc.) until it reached the A6 level of upgrades. The Army then gave it a
> name since that is the Army standard (as well as other services).
>
> Derek
> T065
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Sgt.A.Johnson <
>
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I've not heard of an M109. As90 is just the British self propelled
> > artillery I thought. Unless your all going on about something
> > completely different or its identical to an M109. seeming as it fires
> > a 155mm shell. Id count it as artillery and apparently the variant in
> > service isnt indirect and is used much like a standard howitzer. I'm
> > probably wrong though. According to this its artillery anyway:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS-90 COPIED AND PASTED FROM
> > WIKIPEDIA: Four tenders were submitted, and AS90 was the only offer
> > that was not 'brochureware'. The MoD was also required to consider the
> > US "Paladin", an upgraded M109 howitzer. does this mean
> > its not an M109
>
> > On Jun 2, 2:57 pm, Frank Pittelli <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Derek Engelhaupt wrote:
> > > > As far as I can see, an M109 would be considered a tank according to
> > the
> > > > rules.
>
> > > The M109 is definitely a "tank" under the rules.
>
> > > Frank P.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
To post a message, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected]
Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
