The point that a tank can be blown up is not senseless, it is concise and to the point.
Distance is the best armor. "Give me a fast ship, for I mean to go in harm's way." JP Jones.
Armor detracts from fast. Yes, you can supercharge the engine, but that leads to overheating. There is no free lunch.
The point that a tank can be blown up is not senseless, it is concise and to the point. Distance is the best armor. "Give me a fast ship, for I mean to go in harm's way." JP Jones.
Or as my brother (Maj. US Army) puts it, speed is life.
***
Armor detracts from fast. Yes, you can supercharge the engine, but that leads to overheating. There is no free lunch.
EVERYTHING'S a trade-off, there is no do-it-all vehicle, plane, ship or weapon.
If these knuckleheads were around in 1942, they would be telling us the F4F Wildcat needs to LOSE its armor so it can maneuver better with the Zero. Problem is that though the Zero could out-turn and out-climb the Wildcat, you only had to breathe on it to knock it out of the sky, and it couldn't dive worth a crap. It also did not have self-sealing fuel tanks so it would burn like a comet from a dirty look. In fact if it got in a dive much over 360 mph, the stabilizers became useless. Wildcat pilots could often just go into a steep dive to escape.
Say again, everything is a trade-off...
Rummy's comment that an armored vehicle can still be blown up was quite obtuse, not consise and to the point.
"And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up. And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on."-Rumsfeld
And the point is ??? Forget about wanting the armor?
Conservatives should have an anti-BS mindset.