Re: A Tank Rule Occured
- From: "Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondouglas@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 Mar 2007 13:53:02 -0700
On Mar 31, 4:49 pm, "Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondoug...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Mar 31, 1:16 pm, "Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondoug...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
A certain method as attack was to allow the US a tank destruction,
while enemy would never see the design. Early tanks had a special
design.
And the enemy was to not understand why they were lost.
And you were supposed to be trained for the attack. It is still
recited in the real rule book.
Obsolete rules are still recited, but stated as superceded.
A wing on an aircraft training is still like this today.
State the design flaw. For WWI tanks
All the repliers loose. You would buy the tank design and not know it
was predesigned for tank elimination.
The ammunition was all in a corner on purpose!
Why? It should be obvious.
A flame thrower corner. A design to allow the enemy to make the like
tank! And commit resources to a flaw.
And it worked.
Beleive it or not: Wings are truely still hidden technology.
.
- References:
- A Tank Rule Occured
- From: Douglas Eagleson
- Re: A Tank Rule Occured
- From: Douglas Eagleson
- A Tank Rule Occured
- Prev by Date: Re: Royal Navy vs Iranian Navy
- Previous by thread: Re: A Tank Rule Occured
- Next by thread: Re: The U.S. Army Counterinsurgency Manual
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
