yes Steve...I understand the rule and its fine as its the rule.  This said when 
I buya 1/35 kit to build of a E-100 by example...I dont say I dont have that 
tank untillthe last piece is build...as I have it all in parts 
already...thinking the same waythe real E-100 was build actually...from hull to 
tracks...from engine to gun, fromturret to radio....only not all 
essembled...thats how I see it differently than atank that exist only on 
paper....but I dont want to change the rules...I justfollow my own 
rules...smiling. Greg
 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:40:40 -0700
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: what kind of tank is this?

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]> 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.

 

 
                                          

-- 
-- 
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.


Reply via email to