Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : To be a Liberal,you have to believe that..... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hoa Hao who wrote (4666)	10/27/1999 9:08:00 PM
From: MikeH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6418

Sorry, dropped a zero, heh, my old Impala would qualify as a tank at 2 tons. The main problem with heavy transports is that they can't move equipment fast enough for an invasion situation. You first have to take an airfield, and then move armor into 1 bird at a time. So you have a fixed location with a slowly growing number of tanks, a juicy target for an enemy general. The reason this isn't a general tactic today is the near pointlessness of armor on the modern battlefied. Tanks have two roles, destroy other tanks (which A-11s and Apaches do better) or take out infantry in hardened positions (which air strikes do better). The modern tank also costs as much as a strike fighter, and for it's limited role, money could be better spent on the bird. Russian tanks are even more worthless then the M1A. The M1 is at least immune to most infantry packed weapons. Soviet battle tanks are easily destroyed by TOWs and some of the older ones will pop for a LAW.