Leading a platoon of about 40 infantry units or being a tank commander leading a few tanks?
(I have to decide)
2007-10-11 11:26:09 · 21 answers · asked by Moriarti 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
With no further information, tank commander.
Depends on battle & location.
Ground troops suffer more injuries than armor - if the enemy lacks adequate anti-tank weapons.
If the enemy has excellent anti-tank weapons, odds are better on the ground.
Historically, armored units are "safer", but it is a battle...
2007-10-11 11:29:46 · answer #1 · answered by Captain Obvious 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on who you battle. It would be easier to ask which was safer, tank commander or platoon leader in the first gulf war? , in the second gulf war? In Vietnam etc. In those cases the tank commander is safest.
2007-10-11 18:58:51 · answer #2 · answered by paul 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tank is way safer. Infantry is just you and a gun. Bullets bounce off tanks. And The US has very few enemies with air support.
2007-10-11 18:28:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it depends on where you are, the terrain
the distance where they start
if the battle started far away then tanks, as they are long range
but if they were closer, or a tank was to get closer then the infantry units can use that as an advantage and take over a tank and use it to their advantage
2007-10-11 18:28:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
ummmm.....its battle so its not really all that safe
if i had to choose which is safer though i would have to go with the tank. The main cause of tank casualties are caused by friendly fire, but the military had developed a targeting system that prevents locking onto friendlies signatures.
2007-10-11 18:29:39 · answer #5 · answered by Very confused 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends. At least an infantryman has somewhere to hide. The armor, firepower and mobility of a tank is nice, but if you're spotted and then engaged by Javelin missiles, attack helicopters or strike aircraft, you will probably die.
2007-10-11 18:41:33 · answer #6 · answered by Gotta have more explosions! 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why not do both, be a Cav Scout. All the Armor of the M3 Bradley, and all of the leg work of the Infantry.
2007-10-11 18:58:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Neither!being a civilian is safer than being either one of those kind of leaders,but being a politician is still the safest thing to be in a battle.
2007-10-11 18:58:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Being in a tank is safer.
2007-10-11 18:37:40 · answer #9 · answered by jimmy s 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it is a lot safer to not go to war at all, and take advantage of the freedom those who do fight earned for us by protesting and complaining about war, and those who fight for the very freedoms we exercise in protesting war.
Why fight when someone else will do it for you?
2007-10-15 14:07:03 · answer #10 · answered by ipdsniper 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋