RE: M113 APC?

Actually to provide an ACCV version you would probably rediuce the
number of
grunts you carry and add two more d8 SAWs for teh wing guns....

As an aside teh Australian M113 is fitted with a Cadillac-Gage turret
mounting twin 30s or a 50/30. But when buttoned up firing from this is
almost as bad as suppressed; visibility is really poor! So, if you want
to
run with this version for historical scenarios; say Somalia or Timor
then
I'd suggest a 2 range banc modifier for firing whilst suppressed to
represent poor visibility and Fire Control system. The new turret being
introduced is fitted with a day/night elcro-optical sight but it isn't
widely deployed quite yet.

Owen G

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Popeyesays@aol.com [mailto:Popeyesays@aol.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2000 1:33 PM
> To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject: Re: M113 APC?
> 
> 
> In a message dated 1/26/00 9:17:15 PM Central Standard Time, 
> Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au writes:
> 
> << Sounds right.
>  You can turret the APSW for 1 CS & still carry 9 passengers. 
>  This means you
>  can still fire the APSW while suppressed. >>
> 
> Yeah, but it's an historical scenario and even the ACCV 
> version was not truly 
> turreted; therefore while the rules would allow it the period 
> will not. One 
> thing to note with M 113 squads in Vietnam is that they 
> rarely rode INSIDE 
> the vehicle. THeir main worry (rational or not) was mines and 
> they felt the 
> vehicle was a death trap in a mine hit. The Vietcong and NVA 
> often made their 
> own mines from unexploded bombs, so one of their mines might 
> have a couple 
> hundred kilogarms of explosive in it - so sitting in it or on 
> it was rather 
> moot.
>