Jump to content

Their MGS-airdroppable w crew inside, amphibious, etc.


Recommended Posts

Just found this and am recovering from the shock. The VDV now has a very scary ASU-85 replacement sporting the Sprut 125mm tank cannon and the fire control, stabilization and suspension to support it.

Would love to see a Russian intervention module with this, the BMD-3, the Nona, the Vena, etc.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ March 29, 2008, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bumping because I think a VDV module would create all sorts of fascinating possibilities. Sprut-SD, BMD-3, the 2S-9 Nona and the Vena would let us play in all sorts of places. The lightweight 12-tube truck mounted Grad could be by FO, and people have been positively clamoring for ZU-23s, also found in the VDV. Thoughts?

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

M1A1TC,

Which model? The M551, provided it made no earlier attempt to fire the 152 as a cannon, thus throwing the Shillelagh FCS out of alignment, could've handled the BMD-1 via more accurate missilery, but had no internal troop carrying capability. The BMD-2 was for command, mortar tracks, etc. The BMD-3 has no U.S. even remote counterpart that I know of.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, just look at BMD-1. It has 73mm gun, coax 7.62mm MG, 2 7.62mm bow MGs, AT-3 Sagger, it offers armor protection, is airdroppable, and can carry 4 passengers

What does US Airborne has with these capabilities? And BMD-1 was developed in 1965

BMD-4 has 100mm main gun with coax 30mm, 7.62mm MG, 5.45mm MG, 40mm GL, AT-5 Spandrel, and has water jets. US got nothing like that!

http://www.military-today.com/apc/bmd_4.htm

[ April 06, 2008, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: M1A1TC ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any new russian toy will be a welcomed addition to the game. Russian armor is allways sexy. :D

I agree that Russian airborne units were best equiped with specialised equipment. The M551 for instance didn´t had much success at its originaly intended role, and was discarded fast, and i don´t remember any other specialized vehicle for airborne use.

I think that US allways gave more importance to their naval infantry than theyr airborne infantry.

Probably because the US had the most numerous naval infantry and the russians the most numerous airborne infantry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...