![]() |
|
|||||||
| Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Dirty cigarette-smoking lowlife
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 85
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
Quote:
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Doctor Wtf
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Badelaide, Baustralia
Posts: 12,861
|
Depends on the kind of war.
For fighting the Nazis in Normandy, or Saddam's republican guards, tanks are great. For fighting guerrillas inside a town full of people who you hope to win over, you need accurate information and brave grunts to go and shoot the enemy. Afghanistan is a mix of both types, I'd say, but more of the latter.
__________________
Shut up and hug. MoreThanPretty, Nov 5, 2008. Just because I'm nominally polite, does not make me a pussy. Sundae Girl. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Very serious. And some think otherwise only because a big tank inspires a big penis. Emotions do not create reality or facts.
Others who better understand these concept understand why tanks were so necessary in Normandy or in Desert Storm. But have minor value in Afghanistan. Far more important - by hundreds or thousands of percent more valuable - are choppers. And a weapon that the Brits wanted more than anything provided by the UK - A10s. As you should know, in WWII, tanks were not as important as many would hype. The Army with the shittiest tanks won the war. Because that nation had other more important assets. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
|
Quote:
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|