Re: Communication and Travel

On 15 Jun 98 at 23:55, John Atkinson wrote:

> You wrote: 
> 
> >The 'probably' is rather important.
> 
> It's a non-issue.  Tanks are fun and easy to kill.  Mines, satchel
> charges, shoulder-fired rockets.  

<shrug> depends if tanks are hover, or grav. Some things just need a 
high tech solution to kill them. Unless they have some sort of 
advanced guidance for the smart mine to target with, or people with a 
hell of a throwing arm to chuck it up at it, or missiles that don't 
get shot away with the tanks personal point defense.... etc etc. 
You made the point before that getting them when they are landed, in 
garrison, or going for the crews when vulnerable (on r&r etc) which I 
agree with. But there comes a point when the technological gap in 
battlefield conditions gets too extreme for the lower tech to be able 
to achieve much.

[snip commentary on Russians and chchens that I think we basically 
agree upon]

> 
> >Americans versus Vietnamese, I think you will find the american 
> >military complaining that their political policies lost them the war.

> >Although, I'll readily admit it still would have been difficult 
> >without that.
> 
> *Snx*  Name a single encounter where the Vietnamese didn't come away 
> worse for the experience.  Tactically, we had them beat cold.  

The whole war.

It doesn't matter if you win every single engagement if you lose the 
war. 

In extremis: If your government withdraws you from a war because you 
lost unnaceptable casualties of.. twenty men, while you inflicted 
thousands of casualties, it still means the other side won. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Richard Slattery	     richard@mgkc.demon.co.uk
Instant gratification takes too long. 
     Carrie Fisher
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~