11-06-2021, 12:58 AM
I wonder whether this sort of argument ever happened in the military.
General Smith: Armour on tanks protects tank and crew from shells from opposing tanks and artillery.
General Jones: But armoured tanks are still destroyed by opposing tanks or artillery, so there's no point having armour. Why not save money and allow tanks to strip their armour to make them faster and more agile?
General Smith: Armour on tanks protects tank and crew from shells from opposing tanks and artillery.
General Jones: But armoured tanks are still destroyed by opposing tanks or artillery, so there's no point having armour. Why not save money and allow tanks to strip their armour to make them faster and more agile?


