Brandon Cope wrote:
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.
You believe what you want, I'll take first hand eye witness comments
from people I trust instead.
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.
I direct you to the battle of 73 Eastings.
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.
Perhaps. But I'll also accept that we'll have 50 years of planning to go
along with the passage of time, Brandon. When the Japanese attacked us
in 1941, we already had the plans sitting on the shelf for how we were
going to go about taking back the Pacific. What might happen might
happen, but given what we've faced (and I wouldn't call the Iraqi army a
lightweight, despite how we pounded it into the sand), I think the M-1
and its turbine, fuel needs and all, did pretty damned well. And it will
continue to do well until we get the equivalent of a Mr. Fusion.
--
Kurt Feltenberger
[email protected]/[email protected]
http://www.casademon.org
“Before today, I was scared to live, after today, I'm scared I'm not living enough." - Me
_______________________________________________
GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]>
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
