Comments by "1IbramGaunt" (@1IbramGaunt) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters"
channel.
-
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