By comparison, the TAM looks a lot better next to an Abrams than a Sherman next to a Tiger. On Jun 16, 2015, at 2:36 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote: > >> On Jun 16, 2015, at 1:12 PM, Grimmund <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> A tank you cannot transport to the battlefield because it’s >>> too large/heavy to use your infrastructure is a lump of useless metal. >>> Expensive useless metal that will likely cause your troops to get killed >>> because you couldn’t afford the tanks that could be transported. >> >> That's an argument to upgrade your infrastucture, not downgrade your amor. What? Spend a fortune so that the big bulky enemy tanks are more mobile and have less money left over to buy competitive tanks? Why not just set up behind a nice earthen berm and snipe at the pretty $$$-topian tanks that are trying to wallow through the muck? > Which may be prohibitively expensive compared to building your tanks, which ARE FINE FOR THE ROLE THEY WERE BUILT FOR (note 'While the TAM would have been effective against any possible South American opponent” ...It’s also illogical that it was ‘helpless against any NATO standard tank'…if it mounted the same gun, it’s not precisely ‘helpless’.) > > But then this is the very kind of thinking that gets us absurdities like the F-35 as a replacement for both the F-16 as an air superiority fighter and the A-10 as a ground support aircraft. > > Perhaps we can call the F35 the ‘dallyplane’, to drag it back to the source material. > > -- > Bruce Johnson > University of Arizona > College of Pharmacy > Information Technology Group > > Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs > > ----- > The Traveller Mailing List > Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml > Report problems to xxxxxx@travellercentral.com > To unsubscribe from this list please goto > http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=IvpLlOV7VxBrhKrubk0hrN7lwKlIvn08
