[snip]
>The old armor at best (or worst, depending on your perspective) would
serve
>only a very limited value and it's costs far outweight it's benefit
factor.
>Perhaps in an open field combat stituation where you are making a run
for it,
>such a vehicle might help, hard to say. But, armor by itself, even
modern
>armor, is very vulnerable when acting solo. It presents no more risk
than a
>farmers tractor.
Agree. You need infantry and more than one tank.
[...]
>Only fear absent the facts could lead to such stupidity. And stupidty
at the
>highest level of government.... now there is a security problem, there
is our
>real risk! Better we remove the stupid bureacrats than antique
mil-vehs. The
>guy who came up with this policy change must be a mental... it wouldn't
>surprise me if he was a pervert, a liar, uh wait a second...I think I
know
>where it came from now!
But what about that guy that stole the M-60 in San Diego? That
television soundbite is engrained in the political leaders minds, how do
we address that fact succesfully?
Sean
>
>
>
>Jack Lee
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.