Difference between revisions of "Talk:Patton"
Sarna News
(→CQB?: check the source) |
(→CQB?) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::Just what I wanted to say after checking the MBT-category.... :D[[User:RagTag|RagTag]] 18:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC) | ::Just what I wanted to say after checking the MBT-category.... :D[[User:RagTag|RagTag]] 18:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::TRO:3039 specifically states that the Rommel & Patton were created for defending cities. That said, I agree that, in practice, the Patton functions more like an MBT. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 01:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC) | :::TRO:3039 specifically states that the Rommel & Patton were created for defending cities. That said, I agree that, in practice, the Patton functions more like an MBT. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 01:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::Okay, the guy with the book won....; ) [[User:RagTag|RagTag]] 08:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:30, 12 April 2010
CQB?
Just a little thought at CloseQuarterBattles.... If the Rommel is a CloseCombatVehicle, isn't the Patton something else? Yes, the AC/10 isn't exactly a far-reaching weapon by modern standards, but it certainly is not a specialized CCWeapon such as its larger cousin! I'd vote for revision, but this category-stuff is hard to resolve... Just gimme your thoughts on that if you have any...; )RagTag 18:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)