Read the forum code of contact
By: - 25th July 2013 at 23:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
apparently they are bitching about its inability to be used in combat especially as the guns have to be dismounted to use the doorsflaw of w-3 design?
or perhaps they shouldn't have bought the W-3A which is for transport
and instead go for the W-3WA which is the armed variant? (note gun on bottom not sides)
]
Is that it?????
It hardly a design flaw and blind freddy wouldve known before they bought it that mounting a gun in the doorway would be a hinderance when loading and unloading. The Australian Army had the same complaint with the MRH90. Clearly the selection criteria was the problem then as no one thought about this minor issue.
By: - 26th July 2013 at 07:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is that it?????It hardly a design flaw and blind freddy wouldve known before they bought it that mounting a gun in the doorway would be a hinderance when loading and unloading. The Australian Army had the same complaint with the MRH90. Clearly the selection criteria was the problem then as no one thought about this minor issue.
indeed, they should've done a bit more research onto something so basic.
it also doesn't seem something that some modifications can't solve either.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 25th July 2013 at 09:14
apparently they are bitching about its inability to be used in combat especially as the guns have to be dismounted to use the doors
flaw of w-3 design?
or perhaps they shouldn't have bought the W-3A which is for transport
and instead go for the W-3WA which is the armed variant? (note gun on bottom not sides)
