How the artillerys are set up

Sleepwalker · AA Infantry **Joined**: 13 Apr 2006 **Location**: No(r)Way

Each side will have an artillery. The USA one will not be deployable, but slow (speed=2). Britain will have a faster artillery but it needs to deploy to fire. Russia wont have an artillery but a mobile napalm missile launcher, probably deployable.

Edit: Okay, artillery plan is now changed a bit

gufu · Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 8:58 pm Post subject:

Napalm missle... what?

give us our Katushas!

_________________
DUNK!

Crimsonum · Seth **Joined**: 14 Jul 2005 **Location**: Fineland

at least spell it correctly, Katiyusha(that maybe wrong too)

sounds nice, I wonder if the Russian Napalm Missile Launcher will be like TD SSM Launcher

_________________

Destiny · President **Joined**: 02 May 2006 **Location**: Singapore

You meant Katyusha Rocket Launcher. But the US's Artillery is sooooo slow! Even the Mammoth MK.II has a speed of 4! Well the MNML should deploy because maybe it needs to raise it's missile launcher racks to 45~50 degrees in order to let the missile have a Artillery-like tracjory (Or something)

Clarkson · Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 1:39 pm Post subject:

U.S. Should have a Tomahawk missile or something...and Katyusha's are out of date....

_________________
PPM's Reichstrollfuherer, 236th Trollenparties brigade.

Destiny · President **Joined**: 02 May 2006 **Location**: Singapore

I'll prefer Tomahawks too...

Mortecha · Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 5:52 am Post subject:

To keep things on a realistic level, I'd say that tomahawks are only launched from ships and aircraft. you guys should consider using the well used MLRS and Paladin for America, the MLRS and the Braveheart for England and the 2S3 sp gun and the smerch for Russia.