3 ms·
It was a generic statement for anyone reading, didn't intend it to be an under-handed slight questioning the competence of the author of the comment I was reply
by throw1234651234 4y ago
It was a generic statement for anyone reading, didn't intend it to be an under-handed slight questioning the competence of the author of the comment I was replying to.
With that said, do you agree with the combination of APFSDS and heaviest armor defining an MBT today?
- chrisseaton 4y ago'APFSDS and heaviest armor' same as 'designed to engage another MBT [with their main armament]' I would say. If you count destroying MBTs with ATGW then you'll start calling infanteers 'tanks'.