Buy it here: https://nbnpremium.com/product/premium-las-vegas-aces-playa-society-back-to-back-wnba-finals-champions-roster-shirt/
The best solution to this dilemma, that I am aware of, is forward deployment. M1’s should simply be stored where you are likely to want them. Then the crews and support personnel flown to crew them as required. It is more costly to buy and maintain them in place. But, the air transport requirements are reduced and a solid deterrent maintained. But, the turret requirement itself is an interesting question. The Swede’s have developed a “tank” with no turret at all It is low profile, with good armored protection while being cheaper and lighter than an M1. So, why not a “no turret design”? As the reader can visually determine, to point the gun, the entire tank must be rotated, raised or lowered. In most turretless designs there is some, though limited, gun movement capability as in this WWII Jagdtiger (hunting tiger). So, why a turretless versus a turreted design? The answer generally boils down to offense versus defense. If you expect to be fighting point defense from a fixed, hull down or semi fixed position, then a turretless design might work. That is because you know what your field of fire needs to be. You know where the enemy will be coming from or you can make quick adjustments once they are sighted. So, a limited traverse does not hurt you as much. On the other hand, on offense, a tank must be flexible. The enemy could pop up anywhere. The ability to rotate the turret rapidly to meet the threat is paramount. U.S. army doctrine emphasizes fire and maneuver. Tanks will be moving and counter attacking even in defense. That is why the U.S. and most NATO countries and Russia have all opted for the turret. Sweden is not a member of NATO. And, while the Swedes maintain a close relationship with NATO, their perspective is very much defensive. Thus, they have chosen the turretless design.
Commentaires