| Tango01 | 31 Jan 2017 2:54 p.m. PST |
Armies Army sells FV-436 British command tanks in 15 mm.
Main page
link Amicalement
Armand |
| 11th ACR | 31 Jan 2017 5:15 p.m. PST |
|
| Narratio | 31 Jan 2017 7:51 p.m. PST |
Uncomfortable mover of people – Yes.
Tank – No. |
| Lion in the Stars | 01 Feb 2017 6:54 p.m. PST |
It has tracks and allegedly has armor, therefore it is a tank. |
| 11th ACR | 01 Feb 2017 11:18 p.m. PST |
|
| Murvihill | 02 Feb 2017 11:13 a.m. PST |
"It has tracks and allegedly has armor, therefore it is a tank."
That's what reporters think. |
TheBeast  | 02 Feb 2017 12:42 p.m. PST |
Easy, Lion's just making fun of vague lil' ol' me. Doug |
| Lion in the Stars | 02 Feb 2017 6:32 p.m. PST |
I know it's an APC, using A for Armored rather loosely. Would FV43whatevers even stop 7.62NATO? But crap, even the company that makes Bradleys calls them "tanks"! (And if you figured out how to stuff a 75mm gun in there, it'd be the equal of a Sherman…) |
| deephorse | 03 Feb 2017 9:34 a.m. PST |
The website that Tango links to calls it an APC, which it is of course, so where he gets "tank" from goodness knows. |
| uglyfatbloke | 03 Feb 2017 9:53 a.m. PST |
|
| Tired Mammal | 03 Feb 2017 9:54 a.m. PST |
In fairness it is still a better "tank" than those Panzer 1 command tanks used in Russia in 41. And I don't think you need to up arm any modern cannon equipped APCs to beat a Sherman |
| Tango01 | 03 Feb 2017 11:19 a.m. PST |
Glad you like it my friend.
Finally… a tank or not? (smile)
Amicalement
Armand
|
| Paint it Pink | 06 Feb 2017 8:33 a.m. PST |
Not a tank now, would have been a good tank in WW1. Only saying because what's a tank is relative to time and expectations. |
