• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If the governor of your state called up the militia would you show up?

If the governor of your state called up the militia would you show up?

  • Yes, of course

    Votes: 12 34.3%
  • Hell no

    Votes: 14 40.0%
  • Other, specify below

    Votes: 9 25.7%

  • Total voters
    35
Waddy,
and that "militia" being all of us.

Glad you see it the correct way, as an individual right. Now, if you want to discuss repealing the 2nd , that is a legitimate discussion.

If you want to discuss regulating the 2nd; all rights are regulated. You just can't virtually eliminate a right with regulation. The standard is very high. That's what Heller was about.
 
and that "militia" being all of us.

I believe that was mentioned as a justification by the Supreme Court

A relic of the 18th century

We have a Constitution to address the issues of 250 years ago.
 
I believe that was mentioned as a justification by the Supreme Court

A relic of the 18th century

We have a Constitution to address the issues of 250 years ago.
You do know the ENTIRE Constitution is a "relic" of the 18th century? Most of us find it works pretty well even today. And I'll support that relic any day over whatever plan you got hatching.
 
You do know the ENTIRE Constitution is a "relic" of the 18th century? Most of us find it works pretty well even today. And I'll support that relic any day over whatever plan you got hatching.

No, much of it is as valid today as it was then - but parts like the 2nd Amendment date it.
 
"The T-34 is a Soviet medium tank introduced in 1940..."

So it was available in 1941 and through 1942, when Germany was on the offensive




So when you said it was a light tank, you were wrong
And much of what was used was smaller in WWII compared to today - the fearsome German 88mm gun would be regarded as way too small now


"As the United States approached entry into World War II,...the field manual stated:
The armored division is organized primarily to perform missions that require great mobility and firepower....its primary role is in offensive ops against rear areas"



US Army doctrine wasn't to field a "break through" tanks like the Germans had or infantry support tanks like the British had. The US Army rejected a heavier tank as it would use too much resources to ship it across the Atlantic or Pacific.




Tanks are not "easy" to knock out - unless operating with no infantry support
And in WWII production was maximized on everything from rifles to aircraft carriers




Most wars since WWII have been low intensity or COIN wars
Tanks are not easy to knock out (unless employed without infantry support)




Then why judge the M-4 Sherman medium tank as light by modern standards ?
Why did you make the comparison between today's M1 tank and WWII German tanks, of which you said:



What universe were you living in ?




Heavy artillery too is less than useful in COIN operations
Nevertheless tanks are not exactly "worthless"




A use of tanks is their use as direct fire artillery, against fortified positions, in urban fighting




What's your source on this ?

Military doctrine is always evolving, generally in response to technological advances




Brilliant !
And I suppose that in another war, F-22 Raptors will only be effective as the enemy allows them to be right?
Total BS from someone who has never served in a military
Would the US military have ANY weapons systems that would be more effective than the enemy wanted to allow ?

In the Gulf War (1990-91) the US army trashed the much larger Iraqi army in 100 hours - did the Iraqis "allow" that ?




Makes no difference, the militia is steamrollered.
Much of what was used then is lighter which is why I called it a light tank, for it's variants many barely even by ww2 standards barely met medium tank weight class, they were a very lightweight tank.


I already know the us did not field heavier tanks because of transport and cost, the literall idea was that the cost to make and ship the sherman mean it was possible to win through numbers, they could grossly outproduce the germans, and even in tank on tank battles the numbers could be used to offset the size, however that did not happen often enough.

Using tanks as direct artillery is actually a waste of a tank, they are more expensive than self propelled artillery, and less powerful, ask saddam how well it works to use tanks as artillery, oh wait he is not alive to answer that.

The f22 works in both traditional and irregular warfare, while a tank can be stopped by mines, trap pits, and even concertina wire( I have litterally watched abrahms and m88's get stopped dead in their tracks by the wire, infact I have yet to see a single vehicle win against the stuff)

In the gulf war actually they did through their poor doctrine and lack of training. Iraq had a large enough force that had they had proper training and command the gulf war would have been a two way blood bath, however the united states used the overkill strategy assuming they were semi competent, which however proved to be false as iraqi command was so centralised that they could not do anything without orders from the top.

If you want to see what a militia with minimal arms can do look up russia fighting chechnya, the russians lost numerous tanks, so many infact that they realized that in a coin environment tanks were worthless as a main threat, and they had to send in infantry first before they could let tanks in to prevent massive losses of armor.
 
Much of what was used then is lighter which is why I called it a light tank, for it's variants many barely even by ww2 standards barely met medium tank weight class, they were a very lightweight tank.

You called it a light tank because you didn't know the US Army classed it as a medium tank and it was heavier than both the Panzer IV and T-34
So what about modern day standards...WWII ended over 75 years ago, a closer war would be WWI where the M4 would have been a heavy assault tank


I already know the us did not field heavier tanks because of transport and cost, the literall idea was that the cost to make and ship the sherman mean it was possible to win through numbers, they could grossly outproduce the germans, and even in tank on tank battles the numbers could be used to offset the size, however that did not happen often enough.

It happened every day after the Normandy landings. Please advise when the German army won a tank battle with the US army after June 6th, 1944

Using tanks as direct artillery is actually a waste of a tank, they are more expensive than self propelled artillery, and less powerful...

You obviously don't understand the difference

Artillery is used as "indirect" fire (ie: it can't see what it's shooting at)
Tanks are used as "direct" fire (ie: it can see what it's shooting at)

A tank is basically armored, self propelled, direct fire artillery
It has AT rounds for use against other tanks and HE rounds for infantry support

Don't get confused and think that tanks are like the armored heavy cavalry of old and go on charges


The f22 works in both traditional and irregular warfare, while a tank can be stopped by mines, trap pits, and even concertina wire( I have litterally watched abrahms and m88's get stopped dead in their tracks by the wire, infact I have yet to see a single vehicle win against the stuff)

How can an F-22 work in COIN ops ?
Did not the USA have air supremacy in Vietnam
Did not the USSR have air supremacy in Afghanistan ?


...Iraq had a large enough force that had they had proper training and command the gulf war would have been a two way blood bath...

It wasn't even close
The technology gap was just too big

Coupled with total allied air supremacy and a flat desert battleground, Iraq hadn't a chance


If you want to see what a militia with minimal arms can do look up russia fighting chechnya, the russians lost numerous tanks, so many infact that they realized that in a coin environment tanks were worthless as a main threat, and they had to send in infantry first before they could let tanks in to prevent massive losses of armor.

The Russian doctrine is that tanks and infantry are expendable.
 
No, much of it is as valid today as it was then - but parts like the 2nd Amendment date it.
Now you're in "one man's opinion" territory. We each get an opinion as to which part of the Constitution is "dated". Personally, my opinion is it's all relevant.
 

But he was a pretty knowledgeable man.
his dissent in Heller was widely lampooned. His main argument was that he could not believe that the founders failed to give the federal government the power to ban guns so he was going to pretend it existed. his own actions of demanding the second be later changed, shows he admits that the second, as written, prevented the crap he wanted the federal government to be able to do. He isn't seen as one of the towering intellects on the court though he did have an admirable academic record (as does just about everyone on the court). HE was seen as the last of the "Rockefeller Republicans"
 
his dissent in Heller was widely lampooned...

By who
Let me guess....


...his main argument was that he could not believe that the founders failed to give the federal government the power to ban guns so he was going to pretend it existed....

Really
Did he say that in his dissent ?


...he isn't seen as one of the towering intellects on the court though he did have an admirable academic record (as does just about everyone on the court). HE was seen as the last of the "Rockefeller Republicans"


By who ?
Let me guess...
 

But he was a pretty knowledgeable man.
He is absolutely correct. If you want to pass laws banning the individual ownership of guns, you have to repeal the 2nd Amendment. His statement is a tacit admission that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right.
I've said before that calling for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is a legitimate argument. Not one I would support, but an honest approach. It's trying to twist and spin the 2nd as it is now written into the Constitution into a denial of the individual right that I object to. That is utterly dishonest. Because it is very clear the Framers who wrote it intended it as an individual right. There is no intellectually honest argument against that interpretation.
So call a Constitutional Convention and overturn the 2nd Amendment.
 

But he was a pretty knowledgeable man.

Stevens was always schizophrenic constitutional taffy-puller and his senility only made his most recent statements about changing the Constitution (this and his 2014 "Six Amendments" book) more ridiculous.

I do agree with others here that the simple statement that we must change the 2nd (or remove it from the Constitution) as a unqualified confirmation that the 2ndA does precisely what he has spent years denying . . . That is, protecting the individual right of the citizen to keep and bear arms, without any reference to, reliance on, or any conditioning or qualification based on, the citizen's militia association or lack thereof.

There's only one worse former Justice to hold up as an authority on the 2ndA / RKBA, that would be Wandering Warren Burger . . .
 
He is absolutely correct. If you want to pass laws banning the individual ownership of guns, you have to repeal the 2nd Amendment. His statement is a tacit admission that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right.
I've said before that calling for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is a legitimate argument. Not one I would support, but an honest approach. It's trying to twist and spin the 2nd as it is now written into the Constitution into a denial of the individual right that I object to. That is utterly dishonest. Because it is very clear the Framers who wrote it intended it as an individual right. There is no intellectually honest argument against that interpretation.
So call a Constitutional Convention and overturn the 2nd Amendment.


IMO, all gun gun control without a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is a half measure at best.
 
IMO, all gun gun control without a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is a half measure at best.
I agree. ........ that must be a miracle..... we actually agree on something.
Culture determines actions. I lived in Japan for four years. The Japanese are a very racist people, especially disliking Koreans. The Japanese are also a very peaceful people, mainly toward each other. You won't see them looting. But when they do get violent, it's Japanese culture to use a knife. And usually directed against themselves. They have one of the highest suicide rates in the world. So gun control didn't affect them much, and they accepted it, because very few guns were ever owned by individuals in Japan. And very few uses for them.
Contrast that with the North American continent. Wars were fought between Indian groups long before the white man. And peasants coming from Europe, where mostly the nobility owned firearms and land, that's what they wanted. Land and the firearms to defend it. As the historian Charles Beard pointed out, the continent was one long violent frontier settled by rugged individualists. That forntier lasted over 200 years. Historically, and even today we are a conglomeration of tribes who don't trust each other. The right and responsibility of the individual to defend ones self is ingrained. It's also ingrained in our Constitution as the 2nd Amendment. I'm not defending it or apologising for it, it's just how it is. Unless you can change our culture we will remain a tribal oriented nation of individuals. In that context, gun control is next to impossible.
 
I agree. ........ that must be a miracle..... we actually agree on something.
Culture determines actions. I lived in Japan for four years. The Japanese are a very racist people, especially disliking Koreans. The Japanese are also a very peaceful people, mainly toward each other. You won't see them looting. But when they do get violent, it's Japanese culture to use a knife. And usually directed against themselves. They have one of the highest suicide rates in the world. So gun control didn't affect them much, and they accepted it, because very few guns were ever owned by individuals in Japan. And very few uses for them.
Contrast that with the North American continent. Wars were fought between Indian groups long before the white man. And peasants coming from Europe, where mostly the nobility owned firearms and land, that's what they wanted. Land and the firearms to defend it. As the historian Charles Beard pointed out, the continent was one long violent frontier settled by rugged individualists. That forntier lasted over 200 years. Historically, and even today we are a conglomeration of tribes who don't trust each other. The right and responsibility of the individual to defend ones self is ingrained. It's also ingrained in our Constitution as the 2nd Amendment. I'm not defending it or apologising for it, it's just how it is. Unless you can change our culture we will remain a tribal oriented nation of individuals. In that context, gun control is next to impossible.

But does not Japan have a very violent past with one warlord facing off against another until one prevailed over all and effectively banned guns ?

I know that was a few hundred years ago, but gun ownership in the USA (certainly the Eastern parts after the Civil War) was relatively low wasn't it. Hasn't the plethora of gun ownership not expanded exponentially since the end of WWII
Now that could be a factor of the post war economic boom, when in the 50's Americans were as wealthy as they've ever been comparatively and people suddenly had disposable income.

IDK, but the traditional frontiersman made up a very small demographic compared to the city dwellers on both coasts.
 
But does not Japan have a very violent past with one warlord facing off against another until one prevailed over all and effectively banned guns ?

I know that was a few hundred years ago, but gun ownership in the USA (certainly the Eastern parts after the Civil War) was relatively low wasn't it. Hasn't the plethora of gun ownership not expanded exponentially since the end of WWII
Now that could be a factor of the post war economic boom, when in the 50's Americans were as wealthy as they've ever been comparatively and people suddenly had disposable income.

IDK, but the traditional frontiersman made up a very small demographic compared to the city dwellers on both coasts.
The Japanese peasantry, 99% of the population, weren't warlords. generally they were simple farmers and craftsmen. And in Japan today there is still a distinction between the Samurai class and the peasant class. People there know their lineage.
America has always been a gun owning culture. Even in eastern cities there was a lot of crime, and men typically went armed, even if it was only a "pocket" pistol. Most eastern people had a gun at home. Shooting sports have always been popular. And crack shots like Annie Oakley were the rock stars of their day. But yes, gun ownership has expanded as people became more affluent, and in the 19th century into early 20th century gun development was rapid; cheaper/better. It was much like the rapid progress we see today in the world of computing; faster, better, cheaper. Now everyone can afford a computing device, usually several of them.
 
The Japanese peasantry, 99% of the population, weren't warlords. generally they were simple farmers and craftsmen. And in Japan today there is still a distinction between the Samurai class and the peasant class. People there know their lineage.
America has always been a gun owning culture. Even in eastern cities there was a lot of crime, and men typically went armed, even if it was only a "pocket" pistol. Most eastern people had a gun at home. Shooting sports have always been popular. And crack shots like Annie Oakley were the rock stars of their day. But yes, gun ownership has expanded as people became more affluent, and in the 19th century into early 20th century gun development was rapid; cheaper/better. It was much like the rapid progress we see today in the world of computing; faster, better, cheaper. Now everyone can afford a computing device, usually several of them.

I'm not sure that's true.

Firstly the Samurai were not well known for being gunmen so firearms replaced pikes and glaves that the peasantry wielded.
IIRC a Shogun banned all guns when he closed Japan to outside influence, and it wasn't until Commodore Perry forced Japan to open itself to trade that they were reintroduced in the mid 19th century

Secondly, are you sure about gun ownership in Eastern cities prior to WWII ?
 
I'm not sure that's true.

Firstly the Samurai were not well known for being gunmen so firearms replaced pikes and glaves that the peasantry wielded.
IIRC a Shogun banned all guns when he closed Japan to outside influence, and it wasn't until Commodore Perry forced Japan to open itself to trade that they were reintroduced in the mid 19th century

Secondly, are you sure about gun ownership in Eastern cities prior to WWII ?
Regarding the Samurai you're making my point. Gun ownership was historically never very widespread in Japan, so modern gun control, when it came, faced little opposition because it wasn't relevant. Had any Shogun tried to ban blades he would have had a revolt on his hands.

Regarding American gun ownership. If you look at firearms production figures throughout that period, production of almost every type of firearm was very high. Many were of the concealable variety, such as poctet pistols, derringers, pepperbox, vulcans, you name it. There were hundreds of such manufacturers. Probably into the low thousands. Almost all of the firearms had designs and features that indicated they were obviously produced for the civilain market. Then add the surplus firearms sold off by the military cheap after every conflict. Civil War rifles were so common after the war they were used as fence posts. So while some anti-gun writers do a little revisionist history trying to get us to believe gun ownership was relatively rare, the facts don't support such a conclusion. Neither do the crime filled newspaper accounts of the time.
 
his dissent in Heller was widely lampooned. His main argument was that he could not believe that the founders failed to give the federal government the power to ban guns so he was going to pretend it existed. his own actions of demanding the second be later changed, shows he admits that the second, as written, prevented the crap he wanted the federal government to be able to do. He isn't seen as one of the towering intellects on the court though he did have an admirable academic record (as does just about everyone on the court). HE was seen as the last of the "Rockefeller Republicans"
At last count there are currently 33 pieces of legislation "[p]roposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States" pending in the 117th Session of Congress. Only one of those 33 bills involve repealing or altering one of the Bill of Rights:

H.J.Res. 21 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States giving Congress power to regulate campaign contribution for Federal elections.

Democrats have been introducing an amendment like the above in every session of Congress since the Supreme Court tossed out the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold Act) as unconstitutional in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). The above proposed amendment would alter the First Amendment, which is why it is, and has been, effectively DOA.

There has been nothing proposed in Congress to alter or repeal the Second Amendment since it was originally ratified by the States in 1791.
 
Regarding American gun ownership. If you look at firearms production figures throughout that period, production of almost every type of firearm was very high. Many were of the concealable variety, such as poctet pistols, derringers, pepperbox, vulcans, you name it. There were hundreds of such manufacturers. Probably into the low thousands. Almost all of the firearms had designs and features that indicated they were obviously produced for the civilain market. Then add the surplus firearms sold off by the military cheap after every conflict. Civil War rifles were so common after the war they were used as fence posts. So while some anti-gun writers do a little revisionist history trying to get us to believe gun ownership was relatively rare, the facts don't support such a conclusion. Neither do the crime filled newspaper accounts of the time.

Do you have a data on gun ownership going back before 1972 and before WWII ?
 
Do you have a data on gun ownership going back before 1972 and before WWII ?
just do some google searches. There is so much, because there were and are so many manufacturers, you can spend quite some time on it.
 
You called it a light tank because you didn't know the US Army classed it as a medium tank and it was heavier than both the Panzer IV and T-34
So what about modern day standards...WWII ended over 75 years ago, a closer war would be WWI where the M4 would have been a heavy assault tank




It happened every day after the Normandy landings. Please advise when the German army won a tank battle with the US army after June 6th, 1944



You obviously don't understand the difference

Artillery is used as "indirect" fire (ie: it can't see what it's shooting at)
Tanks are used as "direct" fire (ie: it can see what it's shooting at)

A tank is basically armored, self propelled, direct fire artillery
It has AT rounds for use against other tanks and HE rounds for infantry support

Don't get confused and think that tanks are like the armored heavy cavalry of old and go on charges




How can an F-22 work in COIN ops ?
Did not the USA have air supremacy in Vietnam
Did not the USSR have air supremacy in Afghanistan ?




It wasn't even close
The technology gap was just too big

Coupled with total allied air supremacy and a flat desert battleground, Iraq hadn't a chance




The Russian doctrine is that tanks and infantry are expendable.
Let me put it simply, aircraft are on a much different class, they are much more difficult to stop with improvised warfare, while the most ignorant of people can stopm tanks in improvised warfare.

Tanks are used for both indirect and direct fire, however that still does not adress the point. Tanks need mobility, if they are in a dugout they are not mobile but rather fixed artillery at a poor rate of quality, as tow behind artillery is much cheaper, and self propelled artillery is much more effective as artillery than tanks ever could be. Either way tanks or artillery none of then stay in a fixed position unless the enemy is retarded. A common saying in artillery is shoot and scoot, because artillery big enough can be seen on radar, and even smaller artillery can be triangulated back to the point of origin, hence you fire and move as the enemy can not triangulate a target on the move while fixed position artillery is very easy to trace back to and destroy.


Let me put it this way war has changed greatly since ww1 and ww2, your knowledge of war seems to be stuck in ww1 and ww2, if your knowledge of warfare is identical to britain, I feel bad for b ritain as they will likely get their asses kicked by any nation using modern tactics, but something tells me britain does not share your idea of warfare.
 
Let me put it simply, aircraft are on a much different class, they are much more difficult to stop with improvised warfare, while the most ignorant of people can stopm tanks in improvised warfare.

Aircraft are on the ground where they're vulnerable for the majority of the time

But yes, a tank is easier to hit than an aircraft in flight

That said, tanks normally are deployed in greater numbers than combat aircraft (although advances in Drone technology might change this).

Tanks are used for both indirect and direct fire

Whilst a tank's main armament is capable of being used as an artillery piece, remember that it's a gun, not a howitzer and you can't vary the propellant charge like a Self Propelled Gun can and does
Can you give me ANY examples of main battle tanks being used in an indirect role ?
I can't think of any (do you know the difference between a gun and a howitzer Btw?)

...tanks need mobility, if they are in a dugout they are not mobile but rather fixed artillery...

Not necessarily - especially when used in defense
Are you aware of the term "hull down position" ?
An often ignored characteristic of a tank is gun depression, specifically how low the gun can be depressed - do you know why that would be important ?

...a common saying in artillery is shoot and scoot, because artillery big enough can be seen on radar, and even smaller artillery can be triangulated back to the point of origin, hence you fire and move as the enemy can not triangulate a target on the move while fixed position artillery is very easy to trace back to and destroy.

But artillery is vulnerable to counter battery fire, because it is not armored, especially it's support vehicles
Main battle tanks are armored and can thus, dig in. You can read about how British Centurion tanks were deployed to defeat Chinese "human wave" attacks in the Korean War

...war has changed greatly since ww1 and ww2, your knowledge of war seems to be stuck in ww1 and ww2, if your knowledge of warfare is identical to britain, I feel bad for b ritain as they will likely get their asses kicked by any nation using modern tactics, but something tells me britain does not share your idea of warfare.

No, I actually served in the British army in the Cold War years. The BAOR had 3 armoured divisions in 1 BR Corps when I served. That was usually 5 tanks battalions (we called them regiments), and 4 mechanized in infantry battalions.
The objective was to spread out and hold the line as long as possible and then withdraw to another defensive line.

In all the exercises I participated in, British army units never attacked, just defended
The German countryside was landscaped to form many natural "chokepoints" and these were "pre-sighted" by artillery many miles to the rear
And yes, in every exercise, "blue" forces got its ass kicked and were always forced to retreat

I'm guessing you've never served in the military.
 
Aircraft are on the ground where they're vulnerable for the majority of the time

But yes, a tank is easier to hit than an aircraft in flight

That said, tanks normally are deployed in greater numbers than combat aircraft (although advances in Drone technology might change this).



Whilst a tank's main armament is capable of being used as an artillery piece, remember that it's a gun, not a howitzer and you can't vary the propellant charge like a Self Propelled Gun can and does
Can you give me ANY examples of main battle tanks being used in an indirect role ?
I can't think of any (do you know the difference between a gun and a howitzer Btw?)



Not necessarily - especially when used in defense
Are you aware of the term "hull down position" ?
An often ignored characteristic of a tank is gun depression, specifically how low the gun can be depressed - do you know why that would be important ?



But artillery is vulnerable to counter battery fire, because it is not armored, especially it's support vehicles
Main battle tanks are armored and can thus, dig in. You can read about how British Centurion tanks were deployed to defeat Chinese "human wave" attacks in the Korean War



No, I actually served in the British army in the Cold War years. The BAOR had 3 armoured divisions in 1 BR Corps when I served. That was usually 5 tanks battalions (we called them regiments), and 4 mechanized in infantry battalions.
The objective was to spread out and hold the line as long as possible and then withdraw to another defensive line.

In all the exercises I participated in, British army units never attacked, just defended
The German countryside was landscaped to form many natural "chokepoints" and these were "pre-sighted" by artillery many miles to the rear
And yes, in every exercise, "blue" forces got its ass kicked and were always forced to retreat

I'm guessing you've never served in the military.
Tanks can be stopped with ied's, concertina wire, or even road traps as the can not handle things like disguised pits in a road or path very well, aircraft on the other hand would be in the air or in the hanger, which would be a task for an offensive military force not a defensive militia.

Tanks primary focus is direct fire, they can do indirect fire like howitzers, however past ww2 and korea the practice was almost entirely abandoned except by a few nations due to the fact tanks make terrible artillery vs actual artillery.

They have armored artillery, most self propelled artillery is armored and even looks similar to tanks but function in a much different manner. Either way artillery is to shoot and scoot, staying stationary and hoping the enemy does not triangulate your location is a sure fire way to get jacked up, and yes artillery can be traced back to the source, and big guns actually show up on radar when firing, making shoot and scoot even more important.

If the british only defended and never went on the offensive with their tanks then that explains why they lost their empire at an epic rate, forces like those used by russia are going to use their tanks in flanking maneuvers, not just sit at a distance and play nice for british tanks stupid enough to corner themselves into a fixed position. The entire point of a tank is not just armor and firepower but also mobility, if your tanks are sitting still those tanks are wasted.


You keep claiming I must not have served in the military but keep basing your experience off the british military, which iof what you said is true explains why britain had a hard ass time defeating a weak ass nation like argentina and why they lost their whole empire in an extremely short amount of time.
 
Back
Top Bottom