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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (31770)	6/7/2002 10:25:53 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

We need artillery, Hawk, but not a 100 ton unit Hardly 100 tons. More like 50, and they were re-designing it to be 40 tons. globalsecurity.org Besides the Paladin weight 32 tonnes and we would have to airlift at least 4-6 of those to equal the firepower capability of a Crusader which can "hang" up to 8 rounds in the air calculated to land in the same spot at the same time (time on target). You'll never be able to get a M109 Paladin battery, let alone a single Paladin, to accomplish something like that. Thus, for achieve the same amount of firepower, we'd be required to ship and service a greater tonnage of vehicles than would be necessary with one Crusader. Penny wise and pound foolish, IMO. Especially when compared to the cost to deploy and maintain a Spectre gunship. As for the Atomic Cannon, I heard an interesting story once. It seems that when the US freeway system was built, all the overpasses had to be tall enough to permit the Atomic Cannon tractor/carrier to pass underneath. Hawk@trivia.com