|
|
Forums - Research / Post-WW2 |
This Post WW2 forum is intended for asking and discussing reference or historical related issues pertaining to any time after WW2 (1945+) subjects. |
| Topics | 1375 |
| Messages | 4972 |
|
|
| Subject: | 100 Tons?!? |  |
| Date: | Apr 8, 2003 |
| From: | Scott Taylor | |
Hi Peter:
100 tons seems like it would impose a huge logistical price - would the new HET be able to manage such a weight? What about CARRV? Mobile bridges? Not to mention cutting heavily into the power to weight ratio. If that is the penalty paid for uparmouring, I can understand why the US would not opt for it, especially given the issues they already have regarding tank recovery.
Cheers,
Scott Taylor
IPMS London (Canada)
http://ipmslondon.tripod.com |
| |
|
|
 | Question about Abrams - tim white - Apr 7, 2003 |
| . . . Re: Question about Abrams - Christophe Jacquemont - Apr 7, 2003 |
| . . . Re: Question about Abrams - Peter Ong - Apr 8, 2003 |
| . . . . . . Plus... - David Nickels - Apr 8, 2003 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Plus... - Captain Swoop - Apr 8, 2003 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Plus... - John Harris - Apr 11, 2003 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Plus... - Captain Swoop - Apr 14, 2003 |
| . . . . . . M1 Side skirts - Scott Dimmick - Apr 8, 2003 |
| . . . . . . 100 Tons?!? - Scott Taylor - Apr 8, 2003 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: 100 Tons?!? - tim white - Apr 8, 2003 |
| . . . . . . Re: Question about Abrams - Neil Whiteley-Bolton - Apr 8, 2003 |
| . . . . . . . . . I said what TIME said... - Peter Ong - Apr 9, 2003 |
| . . . . . . Re: Question about Abrams - Captain Swoop - Apr 8, 2003 |
|
|
