why m48a1 is not prototype

yoon5442
Private First-Class
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue 2 Jul 2013 14:27
Contact:

why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby yoon5442 » Sun 14 Jul 2013 14:00

pact's 2kk2m had a 3500 range infrared missle

but it's prototype

nato's m48a1 had a 3500 range infrared missle

but it's non-prototype

and m48a1 cheap than 2kk22m

why m48a1 is not prototype

User avatar
busboy
Warrant Officer
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon 20 May 2013 22:58
Contact:

Re: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby busboy » Sun 14 Jul 2013 14:09

Uhh, do you mean the M60A2 Starship? No M48 tank has a missile.

The Starship was a production tank.
Last edited by busboy on Sun 14 Jul 2013 14:14, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
busboy
Warrant Officer
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon 20 May 2013 22:58
Contact:

Re: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby busboy » Sun 14 Jul 2013 14:10

Or do you mean the Chaparral? Again, production vehicle.

Pheranheit
Corporal
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon 21 Jan 2013 02:52
Contact:

Re: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby Pheranheit » Sun 14 Jul 2013 14:11

He means the Chapparal. I don't really see any need for it to be a prototype, though.

User avatar
busboy
Warrant Officer
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon 20 May 2013 22:58
Contact:

Re: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby busboy » Sun 14 Jul 2013 14:13

Pheranheit wrote:He means the Chapparal. I don't really see any need for it to be a prototype, though.


Why would it be? It was in general use and even exported. I don't like the idea of making something a prototype just because "its too good."

Gneckes
Warrant Officer
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2012 16:48
Contact:

Re: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby Gneckes » Sun 14 Jul 2013 14:14

Chappy is fine. Tunguska is better.

/thread
Common sense shall thus be referred to as rare sense.

MENTORImage

Pheranheit
Corporal
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon 21 Jan 2013 02:52
Contact:

Re: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby Pheranheit » Sun 14 Jul 2013 14:18

busboy wrote:
Pheranheit wrote:He means the Chapparal. I don't really see any need for it to be a prototype, though.


Why would it be? It was in general use and even exported. I don't like the idea of making something a prototype just because "its too good."

Agreed.

renorzeta
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 326
Joined: Sat 16 Mar 2013 18:49
Contact:

Re: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby renorzeta » Sun 14 Jul 2013 14:38

first i think it's M48A1 patton :lol:

4 missile vs 8 missile
8 accuracy vs 13 acc ?
5 hp vs 10 hp
better Optics
has auto cannon with very high acc and rof
and it more capable not need many supply trucks
Last edited by renorzeta on Sun 14 Jul 2013 14:44, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Elukka
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun 11 Mar 2012 23:00
Contact:

Re: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby Elukka » Sun 14 Jul 2013 14:43

There are two reasons for a unit to be a prototype: It never entered mass production or it did so after 1985, the game's primary timeframe. They're not going to turn a unit into a prototype for no reason.

George551
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat 21 Jul 2012 18:29
Location: Behind you
Contact:

Re: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby George551 » Sun 14 Jul 2013 14:45

So it is a cheap, cost effective unit that is better in some respects than it's equivalent?

By this logic the Mk10, Mi-24, Spetz and RM would be prototypes...
Everything has a weakness except nukes and magic, but they're just cheating
Image

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests