SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: FaultLine who wrote (88441)3/31/2003 6:32:23 PM
From: Sun Tzu  Respond to of 281500
 
> I don't get it, what's funny about this?

Seems to be claiming that a tank would have 4 feet armor (very far fetched!), though I did not read it quite that way.

ST



To: FaultLine who wrote (88441)3/31/2003 9:16:04 PM
From: mistermj  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
>>I don't get it, what's funny about this?<<
Apparently Win finds it " cool" that he can sneer at Debka reporting.
That is much more important than worrying about the implications of armor piercing weapons on our troops.



To: FaultLine who wrote (88441)3/31/2003 9:17:53 PM
From: XBrit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
1100mm of armor is 110cm, or 1.1m, or about 4 feet. 4ft thickness of steel armor on a moving vehicle is an amusing concept. The author got his decimal point in the wrong place.