« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: M-16 thought  (Read 657 times)

Offline Latrobe

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5975
M-16 thought
« on: May 03, 2011, 05:36:52 PM »
Now that we have an updated M-3 with a 75mm gun choice, why don't we just make the quad .50cal another gun option for the M-3? Do we really need to make it a separate vehicle for it?
Logged

Offline shotgunneeley

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1051
Re: M-16 thought
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2011, 07:32:35 PM »
Why? What good would it do to get rid of the current m-16 just to add the same gun package to the new m3?

If we didn't already have the m-16, then I would agree that the quad .50 cal system would be an easy gun to add to the m3 loadout. Are you asking this only for the sake of grouping the weapons under one vehicle?
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 07:35:31 PM by shotgunneeley »
Logged
"Lord, let us feel pity for Private Jenkins, and sorrow for ourselves, and all the angel warriors that fall. Let us fear death, but let it not live within us. Protect us, O Lord, and be merciful unto us. Amen"-from FALLEN ANGELS by Walter Dean Myers

Game ID: ShtGn (Inactive), Squad: 91st BG

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: M-16 thought
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2011, 09:11:17 PM »
It might have something to do with the number of slots allowed per table.  Is the max number allowed 6?

EDIT:  Nope, I've found a table with 7 options.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 10:03:19 PM by SmokinLoon »
Logged
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline LLogann

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4947
      • Candidz.com
Re: M-16 thought
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2011, 10:00:51 PM »
It is an interesting question for sure.  Not too many differences between the standard M3 transport and the anti air version.  If SP artillery is the same class, the AA MGMC too!!!
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 10:06:02 PM by LLogann »
Logged
See Rule #4
Now I only pay because of my friends.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: M-16 thought
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2011, 10:14:08 PM »
Maybe it has more armor?
Logged

Offline DemonFox

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 158
Re: M-16 thought
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2011, 02:01:30 PM »
I think that the reason is that it is considered a different platform. It's a M-16 not a M-3. At least this is my only logical answer. It's like why don't we have the 30mm choice on the Fw-190 A-5 well it's different then the A-8 that's why.
Logged

Offline LLogann

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4947
      • Candidz.com
Re: M-16 thought
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2011, 08:00:17 PM »
Troops, maybe, but the self propelled, no.  So shouldn't the 75mm and the M16 be the same vehicle?

And I cannot prove any of that, way too lazy to look it up right now. 

Quote from: Krusty on May 03, 2011, 10:14:08 PM
Maybe it has more armor?
Logged
See Rule #4
Now I only pay because of my friends.

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: M-16 thought
« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2011, 09:24:34 PM »
The M3/M3A1, M16, and M3/T48 have the same armor, same engine, and same chassis.

If HTC wanted to, they could easily fit them all into the same M3 selection but pick and choose which variant you want.  The M3 and the M3/T48 are different only in mission capabilities, not chassis, armor, or engine.  I'm sure the M16 and M3 could be viewed just the same.
Logged
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline EskimoJoe

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4831
Re: M-16 thought
« Reply #8 on: May 04, 2011, 09:40:40 PM »
Perhaps HTC didn't have enough information on the platform
to implement it in the update?
Logged
Quote from: DA98 on March 25, 2011, 09:05:45 AM
Put a +1 on your geekness atribute  :aok

Offline Motherland

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8110
Re: M-16 thought
« Reply #9 on: May 04, 2011, 10:26:01 PM »
Quote from: EskimoJoe on May 04, 2011, 09:40:40 PM
Perhaps HTC didn't have enough information on the platform
to implement it in the update?
They had enough information to implement it in the first place...
Logged

Offline EskimoJoe

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4831
Re: M-16 thought
« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2011, 10:38:44 PM »
Quote from: Motherland on May 04, 2011, 10:26:01 PM
They had enough information to implement it in the first place...

Then again, as others have said their standards have changed.
Logged
Quote from: DA98 on March 25, 2011, 09:05:45 AM
Put a +1 on your geekness atribute  :aok
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »