Which G.I. Joe APC gun is the best?

tkjaer21 · Post by **tkjaer21** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:54 pm

The original AF ATC:

The BGM-71 T.O.W. Launcher:

The XM307 A.C.S.W.:

The Mk. 19 40mm Grenade Launcher:

The M2 .50 Caliber Machine Gun:

M249 S.A.W.:

NightVyper · Post by **NightVyper** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:41 pm

i like the 50 cal it just seem the most authentic to that kind of vehicle.

Threetoughtrucks · Post by **Threetoughtrucks** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:29 pm

No gun at all is appropriate for any vehicle with a red cross on the side.

Is this vehicle based on a Ruskie APC?

Or is that a dumb question seeing it is G.I. Joe, anyway?

TTT

fightin · Post by **fightin** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:40 am

The .50 cal looks best, if you ask me

pickelhaube · Post by **pickelhaube** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:06 am

Threetoughtrucks wrote:No gun at all is appropriate for any vehicle with a red cross on the side.

Is this vehicle based on a Ruskie APC?

Or is that a dumb question seeing it is G.I. Joe, anyway?

TTT

Trip T is right. No gun should go on this or any vehical with the red cross.

It is a non combatant vehical. The idea of the red cross is so it will not be shot at. Putting weapons on it will draw fire from the enemy.

popeye357 · Post by **popeye357** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 8:47 am

I think the no weapons on a medical vehicle was from the wars before because I definitely saw some with crosses and guns over there recently. Here is a pic of an ambulance with a turret:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/s ... an_640.jpg

Threetoughtrucks · Post by **Threetoughtrucks** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:12 am

Yes, the pic shows an ambulance with a turret...... but is there a gun in the turret? Doesn't look like that to me.

The Geneva Convention allows for a vehicle to be given a "red cross" for protection.

Excepted from the Geneva Convention -
"(2) Mark with the distinctive Geneva emblem (red cross on a white background).
(3) The GWS protects from attack any medical vehicle appropriately marked and exclusively
employed for the evacuation of the sick and wounded or for the transport of medical personnel and
equipment. The GWS prohibits the use of medical vehicles marked with the distinctive emblems for
transporting nonmedical troops and equipment."

No armament on ambulances. Period.

TTT

NightVyper · Post by **NightVyper** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:10 pm

i think it is being taken to seriously.
if he wants a gun let him have a gun i am sure the geneva convention does not apply to 1/18, but we might need a fact finding expedition.

popeye357 · Post by **popeye357** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:18 pm

I didn't want to turn this into an argument but I just got back from deployment in march and I definitely did see armed ambulances in theater. The pic I put up was just one I found on the web. And like NV said, if the guy wants to arm his rescue vehicle, then I'd go for the .50 (not to heavy but can pack a punch.

Edit: I just talked to a buddy of mine who was with me and said TTT is correct, ambulances are not to be armed and what we saw was against regulations. But the regulations do not cover toys.

paulpratt · Post by **paulpratt** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 8:16 pm

The gun is allowed on the vehicle because the opposing belligerents we are fighting in the sand have no regard for the Geneva conventions. Our military is allowed to get away with it in this case. If both sides want to recognize the treaty, the rules go back into affect and the turrets must be removed. Let those folks out there know they need uniforms, not hide in religious shrines, and stop using civilians as human shields. Fighting within population centers would be a good practice to stop as well. I don't think they'll stop though. Just a hunch.

Threetoughtrucks · Post by **Threetoughtrucks** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:46 am

The point is that "we" are a signer of the Geneva Convention and that is what we are supposed to abide by.

In WW2 the Japanese were NOT a signer but we were still required to treat them good and they could treat us the way they did. Our violations (killing prisoners, etc) did happen, in all theaters, but they were still violations

Today, ambulances do not carry guns. It just does not happen. If it did, the "left" would be all over our troops. Armored vehicles can be used, well marked and no offensive guns.

Hamas used ambulances to move around guns and suicide vests and they were caught by the IDF. Hamas complained to Geneva about the IDF stopping ambulances which were exempt from stoppages and Israel defended themselves in Geneva and won their case. Remember "offensive weapons" are not allowed.

I'm just making a point. Who cares what a Hasbro absurd out of scale toy has on it anyway.

Given the fact that "Who cares", mount the Ma Duece and move on to play with our toys..

TTT

MCalamari · Post by **MCalamari** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:37 am

NightVyper wrote:i like the 50 cal it just seem the most authentic to that kind of vehicle.

Ditto.

The repaint looks great. Are you also going to weather it?

As for the ambulance debate ... I learned something I forgot (I knew the regs w/ respect to ships).

paulpratt · Post by **paulpratt** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:29 am

Threetoughtrucks wrote:The point is that "we" are a signer of the Geneva Convention and that is what we are supposed to abide by.

In WW2 the Japanese were NOT a signer but we were still required to treat them good and they could treat us the way they did. Our violations (killing prisoners, etc) did happen, in all theaters, but they were still violations

Today, ambulances do not carry guns. It just does not happen. If it did, the "left" would be all over our troops. Armored vehicles can be used, well marked and no offensive guns.

Hamas used ambulances to move around guns and suicide vests and they were caught by the IDF. Hamas complained to Geneva about the IDF stopping ambulances which were exempt from stoppages and Israel defended themselves in Geneva and won their case. Remember "offensive weapons" are not allowed.

I'm just making a point. Who cares what a Hasbro absurd out of scale toy has on it anyway.

Given the fact that "Who cares", mount the Ma Duece and move on to play with our toys..

TTT

I agree. In traditional combat we are not allowed to mount weapons on medical vehicles. period.

I was pointing out though, that the real life vehicle that someone linked to above had a weapon on it. In fact, it was an ambulance designed to have a weapon mounted. Those are used - a lot - in Afghanistan because there is no quarter given for red cross marked vehicles there. My wife is active duty JA, she deals with LOAC everyday, so i get the rules.

Also, the Japanese at least had the common courtesy of wearing a uniform in combat as an organized force.

In modern times when we take POWs we treat them with a bit of respect, as we should. We feed them, we shelter, them, etc, but when our red cross vehicles come under attack, our wounded come under direct assault, that is just sickening.

Threetoughtrucks · Post by **Threetoughtrucks** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:49 pm

Active duty JA will tell you LOAC instructs Geneva Convention rules are to be followed.

Simply put, no mounted weapons are allowed on any ambulance..... period.

You can find hundreds of pics of armored ambulances around without any mounted weapons, I'm sure we would be glad to see any pics with mounted weapons.

TTT