zraver

That is not exactly fair to the little tanks, for light tanks they were very well armored and against most German recon/cav vehicles they stack up very well. However even if they had twice the armor it would not have mattered much. German tank killing technology from June 44 was far ahead of allied armor technology. At most range sin Europe if a German tank or anti tank gun could see a allied tank they could kill it and at close ranges steel armor isn't any more effective vs a panzerfaust/panzerschreck round than it is vs a high velocity 75/88mm round. Also the allied shortage of mediums was even more severe for the Germans who increasingly tried to up-arm half tracks and armored cars to provide some form of direct gunfire support. Against these the M3/M5 again stacks up well.

Iran is effectively Tehran as far as population goes. Major parades are going to have an impact on traffic across the entire city with or without road damage, Trailering equipment means you can get stuff in fast (its going to come in on a trailer anyway) and out fast. You only have to stage the trucks, hang the banners and roll out. You don't have to unload, hang the banners, roll out, reload, and ship back to canton.

The oldest cartridge in use is the .22 rimfire short dating from 1857

heck, tankers can't get a combat tanker badge, spurs, or any of the other little gimmicks the other combat arms get, there is more chance of hell freezing than of getting an American Armor Day.

As opposed to walking them unprotected across the mud and craters and losing them hundreds at a time? The Mk IX had an MG. Plus the Mk V+ tanks going with them are there to beat down the defenses. Which are the machine gunners goign to engage? The rifleman of the male and female tanks engaging them? Which makes the slaughter of going over the top all that much worse when you think about it. Even then they were closer than you like to admit. The principle strategy was to get enough men across in a small enough area to overwhelm the enemy with the bayonet. You can't do that very effective if your troop density is too low. The big killers are artillery and machine guns. A mass of MK IX's could get troops across the free fire zone of no-mans land where the MG's would not have enough oomph to penetrate the armor and only a direct hit by a shell would kill a tank. Finally the tanks could get across the wire, and given the Mk IX's extended length probably even the expanded ditches of the Hindenburg Line. The major issue to overcome is one of ventilation of fumes and heat. Solve those and the Mk IX concept is a ready made solution to the problem of getting across no-mans land.

Mk IX carriers troops (30 is more than some) vs a purpose built APC could have been built. Huh? The Mk IX was an APC As there was no time for a completely new design, the Mark IX was based on the Mark V, with the hull lengthened to 9.73 m. The 150 hp Ricardo engine was moved to the front, the gearbox to the back and the suspension girders left out entirely. This created an inner space 4 metres long and 2.45 m wide, enough room for thirty (officially even fifty) soldiers or ten tons of cargo. To ensure sufficient stiffness for the chassis, the floor was reinforced by heavy transverse girders. The infantry inside had to contend with the control rods for the gears running along the roof and the drive shaft through the middle. No seats were provided for them. The crew proper consisted of a driver, a commander sitting to the right of him (the first time for a British tank, showing adaptation to the traffic conditions in France), a mechanic and a machine gunner who could man a gun in a hatch at the back. A second machine gun was fitted in the front. Along each side of the hull were eight loopholes, through which the soldiers could fire their rifles, making the Mark IX also the world's first Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Two of the loopholes were in the two oval side doors on each side.

By attacking effectively unarmed non-combatant construction troops. The only place where the landings saw combat was on the outlying islands where the Marines had a 3:1 numerical superiority. A much better example would be Iwo Jima where both sides are at the peak of experiance. The Japanese are completely out gunned, out numbeed and cut off but they still manage to throw the US time table out the window and create a buttload of Gold Star Mothers.

44-45-46 the best anti-shipping weapon (v warships) was the USN carrier groups. The combination of Hellcat, Corsair, Hell Diver and Avenger could and did sink any ship it was sent in against.

Horses can be conditioned to dive into water, so it might be a training issue.

A quick search shows that the Foch/Clemanceau never catapulted a plane as heavy as the super bug. The DeGaulle can launch the Hawk Eye which is comparable in weight, but neither of the old carriers carried a Hawk Eye. Could be the planes weight or dimensions I am not sure as to why.

If they had been used towards the end of their service life, probably white elephants. However the IS-3/T-10 before the widespread use of the 105mm L7 would probably have caused all sorts of problems for NATO.

The attack in to the port of Syracuse by the Roman Republic.

I don't make any claim to being good at math. But an online calculator using stainless steel sheets came to 6899kg. What weights did you come up with? This presents a problem, the T-72-120 should weigh more than it does if its based on a T-72B. Either the wieght figures are wrong, or its based on a T-72A?

Figure at least a meter deep by how ever wide and tall armored at least vs 14.5mm and probably light cannon on the sides

Wiki shows the T-72 (assuming A) model at 41.5mt while Army guide shows 48 tons a gain a 7.5 tons. Account for the wieght of the K5 and other gear and you have about a 4 ton weight gain. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1317.html