Tentative Guidelines for building partner armies post conflict

[Dayuhan]

Tanks demand great skill to be employed successfully, both against regular and irregular enemies. It's not an argument about do we/don't we need tanks. It's far more about "do we have the skill and resources to make having them necessary?" Only very good armies can operate tanks successfully. - lots of very poor armies still have lots of tanks though.

That's assuming they're intended to be used in combat. How much skill does it take to drive them down the boulevard on Independence Day? That may also explain the restricted movement on the Venezuelan rebuilds, poor Hugo may have worried that unrestricted movement might lead a crew to take a pop at him as they roll by the reviewing stand.

Items such as tanks in a 3rd world army are most often for show, though rolling them out in the streets during public disorders looks impressive.

Roads, too, are an objective factor. The best tank crews in the world aren't worth much without a fleet of trucks and roads to supply them over

Bridges too. Some years back I observed a number of M48s rusting in peace in the Philippine Army HQ. An officer explained that they'd never moved, as at the time they got them there weren't more than a dozen bridges in the country that could support one. There still wouldn't be many, especially in the areas where fighting takes place.

And, sad to say, yes, you're going to die. The good news, however, is that you're most unlikely to die from your no doubt sordid little tryst with a Tranzi.

Death be damned, I was afraid it was contagious, a fate far worse. I suppose even a limited capacity for rational thought would confer substantial immunity...