Comments by "1IbramGaunt" (@1IbramGaunt) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters"
channel.
-
27
-
13
-
13
-
11
-
11
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@alganhar1 ok fair enough, and I actually do realise it's a complicated and difficult conversion process, but THAT complicated and difficult? SIX YEARS to even just do a single production model OF one of them and actually give it to the troops so they can try it out, even though they already DO have a complete working prototype one to show the press, right here in 2021 ready to go? Still seems a mite long to me that, especially considering the original proposal for this thing was way back in 2005. Isn't as if I'm expecting any miracles here, I'm not expecting all 148 in one go, I'm just saying a lot can happen in those six years, six years that we won't have a single one of these things fully really ready for combat, despite their practically having announced them as such back here in 2021! And what's with the only ten-year expected service-life after it DOES enter service, you don't think THAT'S a little odd? (Considering the previous models served well over twice that and are STILL considered a capable MBT even now)?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Farweasel not anymore, the only thing ludicrous about the new Queen Elizabeth Class? We went to the huge effort and expense of not only building them, and not just one of them but two, but also getting the tremendously pricey F35B Lightning II to fly from them; aaaand then chose to use straight decks and ski-ramps rather than angled decks and catapults, for whatever pennies that would save, and ON a massive full-size fleet carrier that then goes on a round-the-world voyage, so the whole bloody world sees it and how penny-pinching we are. Oh yeah and we then get the planes for them piecemeal and agonisingly slowly (and those we do get are operated by the RAF not the FAA and so spend most of their time operating from land-bases); so these new carriers, the pride of the Royal Navy mind you, basically become a pair of huge 70,000-ton helicopter-carriers that occasionally are visited by F35's, THAT'S the truly ludicrous thing
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tonyblack1964 well that's fair enough but frankly I'm glad they WEREN'T given free reign, (A) because the military just doesn't tend to work that way usually haha, (B) because national pride does matter to the country as a whole even if it doesn't to individuals, and (C) because I just generally consider the Challenger series superior- the armour IS far stronger after all, hence more survivable surely, and they're relatively reliable & easy to maintain, and a Challenger 1 scored the longest range tank-on-tank kill in history. In any event though, let's agree to disagree shall we, and my thanks and wholehearted respect for all your service 🙂 love the Chieftain too incidentally, great tank in it's own right, dodgy engine or not
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@siko9799 not if it's 2 or 3 hundred Challengers backed up by thousands of other tanks of our ALLIES they won't, all the Abrams, Leopard 2's, Ariete's & Leclerc's that NATO can muster in the area, along with all the older Russian tanks of the former Warsaw Pact countries to boot, and that's not even including all the infantry, artillery, aircraft and lighter vehicles with their assorted anti-tank weaponry. Pretty difficult to overwhelm one particular tank-force if they've got plenty of friends all around them ready & willing to back them up, and there's a LOOOOTT of those friends in between Russia and Great Britain. Also there's the minor matter that each Challenger's frontal Dorchester depleted-uranium composite armour (which is now fitted on not just the turret but the lower plate and sides too when going into battle) is virtually impenetrable to any known battlefield weapon, and is widely regarded as the single strongest tank-armour in the world. As for Russian armour, by comparison? On older models like the T-72? See every tank-battle of either Gulf War for the proven effectiveness of that lol
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Not necessarilly, remember there might only be 148 of them but these will be 148 of arguably the toughest, most advanced and most powerful western MBT's ever built; plus as you say, the chances of us ever getting in a tank-fight on our own these days are pretty slim anyway. And even if we somehow DID end up fighting against someone on our own again, Falklands-style? It probably just wouldn't involve tanks anyway, and would be limited to infantry, light vehicles and air & naval combat instead, just like it was there; and, if somehow there was such a war again but where that wasn't the case, if it WAS somehow just us in a small limited-scale war like that again, but this time it DID somehow involve full-on tank-on-tank combat? 90% of the countries we ever COULD possibly end up in a fight with like that don't have anything in their arsenals that can even come close to a Challenger 3 lol, those "only" 148 tanks would wipe the f*cking floor with whatever they came up against
2
-
@garyhewitt489 only certain countries are gonna have the money, resources and the industrial & technological capacity to actually build and field stuff like that in any real quantity though, of those only Russia and China are real threats, and frankly anything they can come up with we CAN either make our own version of or find a way to counter, or both, or if we can't ourselves one of our allies can and will instead. As the MOD have themselves stated, one of the primary reasons they ARE only gonna be making 148 of these tanks, is because the need for more isn't considered as pressing as the need to focus on stuff LIKE drones, cyber-warfare, stealth aircraft and advanced defensive systems, areas which the UK Armed Forces definitely ARE gonna be giving plenty of attention. As for the need for tanks, even IN this fancy tech-dominated age we're entering, I still say there is one so long as there's other hostile countries out there that still have tanks too, and also so long as they're of use for supporting our infantry
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Not necessarilly, remember there might only be 148 of them but these will be 148 of arguably the toughest, most advanced and most powerful western MBT's ever built; plus the chances of us ever getting in a tank-fight on our own these days are pretty slim anyway. And even if we somehow DID end up fighting against someone on our own again, Falklands-style? It probably just wouldn't involve tanks anyway, and would be limited to infantry, light vehicles and air & naval combat instead, just like it was there; and, if somehow there was such a war again but where that wasn't the case, if it WAS somehow just us in a small limited-scale war like that again, but this time it DID somehow involve full-on tank-on-tank combat? 90% of the countries we ever COULD possibly end up in a fight with like that don't have anything in their arsenals that can even come close to a Challenger 3 lol, those "only" 148 tanks would wipe the f*cking floor with whatever they came up against haha, and that's only even more certain if we have our Nato allies at our side with all THEIR tanks, as we virtually always will
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Foxtrop13 we had already officially laid claim to the territory a long time earlier though, REGARDLESS of who happened to be living there during the intervening time, Argentina didn't even EXIST when we did lay claim to them; and even if Spain, very debatedly, had a claim at one point? one we don't recognise EITHER incidentally, but even if we did? That's Spain then, not you, different countries, and only certain former colonies of theirs were ever granted to you and the Falklands were NOT among them. As for that Beunos Aires nonsense? for the last time those were SMALL NAVAL RAIDS not proper invasions! (think about it, what good would it do us to control one city and not the rest of the country?), and you didn't "kick us out" of jack shit, we just pulled the raiding forces back out and went home of our own bloody accord
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EdNashsMilitaryMatters oh sure but I just feel like, while the donations are certianly gonna help in wider terms, we're not actually doing much to help in the fighting itself, and sure we're sending AT & AA missiles but not much else, no actual helmets or body-armour or rifles or machine-guns or ration-packs, no ammo or medical supplies to speak of. I'd go volunteer myself if I thought I'd be any use to them, but nope, too old, too fat, no real relevant training or experience. Would donate but I've hardly any money to do so in a meaningful way, am on benefits
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@damicocu3860 and no-one's dismissing the achievements of Saab, quite the opposite! Those guys are awesome as are their planes, and wish we still had a stand-alone combat aircraft company like them here in Britain, frankly, they're something everyone in Sweden should be very proud of. As it is though, what we DO have here is BAE and Rolls-Royce, and they've not exactly been idle either; it's just that while they've actually plenty of experience, and at that experience in considerably more advanced and complex projects than anything Saab's done, it's rarely if ever been something done at home and with them "leading the pack" as you put it, whereas this is; this is definitely Britain's chance, it's "big break", if Tempest and Taranis work out then they're definitely gonna be the start of a new era in British-led aircraft projects
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garyhewitt489 as for your robot soldiers theory, possible but that's still kinda a long way off in the future yet I feel lol, and as for the whole swarm of bees UAV thing, there are VERY fast-firing defensive weapon options, already out there like Phalanx, Aegis, Sea-Ceptor or Sky-Sabre and still in development but getting there like Dragonfire, as well as computerised radar-guided targeting systems that can detect, track, lock onto and destroy targets faster than any human gunner ever could; plus of course it doesn't have to stop at defensive warfare, we're developing drones of our own after all too, including ones with air-to-air combat capabilities that could simply be launched in response to the enemy's ones and have a sort of drone dogfight with them
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@d-rob5513 actually I'm pretty sure I do. While the idea is to finally replace them with something new like Sky-Sabre in the near future, that hasn't actually happened yet, and even when it DOES there'll be a single launcher for a completely untested system, plus the Type 45 or Type 23 aren't always there, so aside FROM those Typhoons, the main air-defence the Falkland Islands actually have? ARE bloody 80's Rapiers still. And like I said before, let's not forget that while at present the Argentine air-force's EQUIPMENT may be a joke, their actual PILOTS sure as f*ck aren't. And as for being certain of supremacy with those Typhoons, the previous point of mine you seem to be completely missing here is that we still don't know jack-shit in terms of CONFIRMED, DEFINITE FACT about the REAL combat capabilities of Chinese aircraft and weaponry, and until they actually show their capabilities in a real war we still won't, nor of course do we know how the Typhoon will fair in a real dogfight against other modern jets EITHER, those Meteor missiles are very impressive on paper sure but they never actually HAVE shot anything down Beyond Visual Range, have they. THEREFORE, until such time as something like a second Falklands War, or Heaven forbid actually a full-on war with China actually happens? The only way we CAN truly have full confidence in our defences down there right now is overall superior numbers and preparedness, rather than relying on technological or qualitative advantage alone
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@noodles169 I'm not so confident of that. While, don't get me wrong, I AM fully confident that one-on-one the Typhoon would wipe the floor with the JF17 or any other Chinese fighter, it's a 3-to-1 advantage in the Argentine's favour we're talking, possibly more if they don't just stop at 14, and we don't actually have much definite cold hard information on the JF17's real combat capabilities or upon those of Chinese missiles, so it's still up in the air; let's not forget quite how skilled, effective and suicidally brave the Argentine pilots actually were in the 1982 war, and that was with far less capable aircraft. And of course there's also the fact that the Typhoon itself still has yet to get into a real life live-fire dogfight with other modern jets, so things aren't 100% certain there either. And I don't like not being sure about such things, hence my desiring more Typhoons, pilots and ground-crew be sent down there to make it a full-on squadron of them
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1