[002]
216.99.32.44
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
But that\'s the problem. There is no definition of \'tank\'. Tank is a broad term that really describes and sets no standards. And, granted that APC\'s and the like aren\'t really for battle but more for transport, almost any AFV can be called a tank. There is very little in the way of criteria for a tank other than it being designed for combat rather than something else. Like, again, an APC, which has weapons on it more for defense rather than offense.
to:
But that\\\'s the problem. There is no definition of \\\'tank\\\'. Tank is a broad term that really describes and sets no standards. And, granted that APC\\\'s and the like aren\\\'t really for battle but more for transport, almost any AFV can be called a tank. There is very little in the way of criteria for a tank other than it being designed for combat rather than something else. Like, again, an APC, which has weapons on it more for defending itself rather than being thrown into combat.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
But that\'s the problem. There is no definition of \'tank\'. Tank is a broad term that really describes and sets no standards. And, granted that APC\'s and the like aren\'t really at all tanks but are more for transport, almost any AFV can be called a tank. There is very little in the way of criteria for a tank either.
to:
But that\\\'s the problem. There is no definition of \\\'tank\\\'. Tank is a broad term that really describes and sets no standards. And, granted that APC\\\'s and the like aren\\\'t really for battle but more for transport, almost any AFV can be called a tank. There is very little in the way of criteria for a tank other than it being designed for combat rather than something else. Like, again, an APC, which has weapons on it more for defense rather than offense.
