Which is safer in battle?

Sarge

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...

wraeth - PHA

Why not do both, be a Cav Scout. All the Armor of the M3 Bradley, and all of the leg work of the Infantry.

Uncle Tim

Depends on what your opposition is.

caldude1010101

Completely depends on the battlefield conditions and the force that you are going up against.

Gotta have more explosions!

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.

jimmy s

Being in a tank is safer.

budda

tanks are artilery and the more fire power you have the more of a threat you are so the more of a target you are

ipdsniper

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?

paul

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.

ausganger_schwartzfeld

Too many variables...

Young Entrepreneur

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

atmporsh911

definitely the tank

b.douglaswyatt

The life expectancy of either is about five minutes in all out combat!

ragingreb

A GOOD SNIPER WILL CLOCK OUT BOTH IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY.ANYONE IN THE OPEN WHO SEEMS TO BE IN CHARGE,GIVING ORDERS IS A PRIME TARGET ON ANY BATTLE FIELD.

qwelzf

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.

Very confused

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.

Mister C.

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.

masterplumber1975

I would say to sit behind a desk in a big white house and send others to their deaths for oil, and they willingly do this because they are proud to serve and defend their country. Although in reality it is only about control of the middle east oil, and a staging point for future attacks on China.

SLAYER

Neither is safer than the other, you can die in either situation!

remofred

BAGHDAD - A U.S. attack killed 19 insurgents and 15 civilians, including nine children, northwest of the capital Thursday â€” one of the heaviest civilian death tolls in an American operation in recent months.

elmuzzy

peace and love always prevails

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: