--- On Sun, 1/17/10, Kurt Feltenberger <[email protected]> wrote:
> Brandon Cope wrote: > > --- On Sun, 1/17/10, Kurt Feltenberger <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Brandon Cope wrote: > >> > >>> I'm talking about fuel consumption -- the gas > turbine > >>> > >> burns fuel much faster than a turbo diesel. Fuel > is a fairly > >> heavy cargo to transport. > >> > >> And has this shown itself to be an operational > problem in > >> almost 30 years since the M-1 was fielded? No...it > hasn't. > >> > > > > The US Army hasn't fought a war against a vaguely > equal opponent since the M1 entered service. > > Not the point. Of course it is. Against a better force, with air power to attack the long supply lines, the heavy armor would have been forced to greatly slow down any advance or risk running out of fuel or ammo. > When we were driving into Iraq and there was > resistance, it wasn't an issue. It wasn't an issue because the forces attacking the convoys weren't appropriately equipped regular army or commando forces. > When we were in Kosovo and Bosnia we were surrounded by > potential enemies it wasn't an issue. You are being extremely short-sighted. There *are* potential issues, but US forces hadn't yet run into an opponent who could adequately exploit those issues. In 50 years, the US may face a more capable foe. Or the US might bot be involved and the two sides may be equally matched. Brandon _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
