Comparing the CV90120-T to the E-100 in regards to production status IMO is a long shot. That's why I said "tested and validated" in the OP. The E-100 never made it out of the builders shed under its own power. The CV90120-T is an evolution/upgrade of a current production vehicle and has been actively marketed by BAE. Off course were threading needles here and that's why the Founder (stands towards Annapolis and bows three times) has that production rule.
Hint, if someone showed up on the field one day with a Tiger II that looked an awfully like an E-100, or a Scorpion that kinda looked like a T-92, that wouldn't stop me from shooting at either one of them. ;-) Steve On Friday, March 29, 2013 8:03:04 AM UTC-4, sparrow47 wrote: > > No, your right; There was one E100 hull built; it was captured by the > soviets, who in their infinite wisdom felt it would look nicer with an > extra mause turret dragged on top of it. They then took the entire thing as > a trophy... This creates the issue of "did a working prototype exist"? One > the one hand there was a hull. On the other there was never a turret... > > As a side note, wasnt the T92 a self propelled artillery unit? > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Guy Gregoire > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> an E-100...is not the E-100 had a running chassis...and set to use a >> completed and already >> working Maus turret, why not an E-100 then? >> >> Its not like if we talk of an E-75 or the other still on paper...but >> maybe im wrong. >> >> >> > > -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R/C Tank Combat" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
