Which G.I. Joe APC gun is the best?
Which G.I. Joe APC gun is the best?
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.:
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.:
-
- Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 3:35 pm
- Location: New York
- Contact:
-
- Officer - Brigadier General
- Posts: 5405
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 9:46 am
- Location: SOUTH JOISEY
- Contact:
-
- Officer - Brigadier General
- Posts: 9649
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:52 am
- Location: New Orleans
Trip T is right. No gun should go on this or any vehical with the red cross.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
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.
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
http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/s ... an_640.jpg
"Leave the Artillerymen alone...they are an obstinate lot" -Napoleon
-
- Officer - Brigadier General
- Posts: 5405
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 9:46 am
- Location: SOUTH JOISEY
- Contact:
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
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
Sometimes I am the windshield, sometimes, I am the bug.
-
- Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 3:35 pm
- Location: New York
- Contact:
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.
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.
"Leave the Artillerymen alone...they are an obstinate lot" -Napoleon
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.
Best,
-Paul
-Paul
-
- Officer - Brigadier General
- Posts: 5405
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 9:46 am
- Location: SOUTH JOISEY
- Contact:
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
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
Sometimes I am the windshield, sometimes, I am the bug.
I agree. In traditional combat we are not allowed to mount weapons on medical vehicles. period.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 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.
Best,
-Paul
-Paul
-
- Officer - Brigadier General
- Posts: 5405
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 9:46 am
- Location: SOUTH JOISEY
- Contact:
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
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
Sometimes I am the windshield, sometimes, I am the bug.