[1Old Pro]

The vehicle - a kind of seafaring tank

Sounds kind of unseaworthy.

[Gay State Conservative]

I assume you use them to storm beaches...like Iwo Jima.

[US_MilitaryRules]

I live and fish over the ocean. They sent those machines and people out into 25+ knots of wind and big swells. Sent them to their deaths. RIP soldiers.

[PapaBear3625]

Amphibious Assault Vehicle rides low in the water. If you have waves, and water gets in from the top hatch, you get a real problem.

[schurmann]

“...The vehicle - a kind of seafaring tank...” [from the original article]

“Sounds kind of unseaworthy.” [1Old Pro, post 2]

The media thinks any armored vehicle used by the military is a “tank.”

If the story was otherwise accurate, the machine that sank was a type of armored personnel carrier that floats, and powers itself from ships onto the shore during assaults on hostile landmasses.

Amphibious landings are perhaps the most complex and risky activities that armed forces can undertake. Designers and engineers have been working since before World War Two, to produce armored vehicles that can protect troops while remaining sufficiently seaworthy to make it ashore without foundering. Compromises are difficult, as the criteria for one phase clash with criteria for the other: armor sufficiently thick to provide serious protection drives the vehicle’s weight up so high that it floats only marginally.