Forum Overview :: Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball :: Re: I am to tanks as Barbie is to small arms.

[quote name="E. L. Koba"][quote name="Chairman Mao"]Modern artillery is also markedly more difficult to destroy with a swarm of small arms fire like what brought down that A10.[/quote] Or the 30 Apaches Longbows that got shot up on their first mission and had to sit out the rest of the war. Doh. [quote name="Chairman Mao"]I'm going to make such a shitty Air Force Officer. Does the Army need laser physicists?[/quote] <a href="http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/thel.htm">Possibly</a> [quote name="Chairman Mao"]Well, maybe. I know they want all this stuff to be air transportable in larger numbers than flying in individual M1's at a time. A 40-ton vehicle system could be transported three at a time by <a href="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/gra.htm">this,</a> but if it were up to me they should just make faster Ro-ro's. ... GAY! then we can look like the South African army! I know! Lets put everying on easily armoured and durable wheels. [/quote] <a href="http://www.army.mil/features/strykerOE/default.htm">Now that would be silly.</a> Actually I meant the same heavy, tracked chassis. If the grunts are going to ride into battle with the tanks, they'll need equivalent protection. And why not keep parts comonality between vehicles to make supply easier? The problem with flying everything in is that wherever we are going the enemy doesn't have to fly. They just have to roll out of their motorpools. So yes, faster Ro-Ro's is a better answer. But I actually thing the SBCT is on the right track. I don't think of them as an armored force. Just a medium infantry force with excellent strategic and tacticle mobility. Not as a replacement for heavy armor, but to supplement it.[/quote]