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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (222727)	3/7/2005 10:59:10 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574678

"But if you want much lighter tanks than just about everyone has weapons that can get through the armor." Doubt it. Composite armor can be pretty tough and light weight. Besides, nobody has the technology that can accurately hit a moving tank like we do, especially when they are moving. While the Soviets and now the Russians exported a lot of T-72s and a few T-80s, they didn't have good fire control. So most of the MBTs that other countries have either use 100mm rifled guns or inferior fire control. Or both. Not only are they not equal to an Abrams M1A2, they wouldn't be equal to a hypothetical down-sized tank either. The problem with carrier groups is the nasty equation, 1 nuclear weapon = 1 carrier group. Not that they are useless, but how many do you need?