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

  1.  @Otokichi786  he did say "major surface combatant", the Peublo just had a few defensive machine-guns and wasn't a true warship
    1
  2. Apparently they're going to look into something to deal with those after they're happy they've sufficiently countered the buried-underneath sort; what they're planning for the roadside kind is probably a variation on the hard-kill Active Protection Systems fitted to tanks to counter enemy missiles and tank-shells
    1
  3. Well surely that's the reason right there?!
    1
  4. Can Argentina actually afford it though
    1
  5.  Account I use to argue on people  which can be equipped with guns, missiles and bombs
    1
  6.  @Charlesputnam-bn9zy  agreed, was definitely a very capable fighter by 1930's standards that, with an excellent engine and well-thought-out design, was an agile little thing you could chuck all over the sky and it could take a lot of damage
    1
  7.  @scootergeorge9576  slow clap
    1
  8.  @damicocu3860  well I'm glad we agree on that at least
    1
  9.  @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
  10. ​​​​​​ @MattCellaneous  as for HMS Trincomalee she may have been built in India by Indians from Indian materials, but India WAS very much a British colony at the time mind haha, and she was designed, commissioned, commanded & sailed by Brits in the Royal Navy for her whole active life; she might be built of Indian Teak rather than English Oak but she's still a Leda-class 5th-rate sailing frigate, the last intact and full-rigged of her kind (not counting her unfortunate sister-ship the never-rigged roofed-over HMS Unicorn), and even though she sadly never got to see action she's still a proud part of Britain's naval legacy and, fittingly, now the centrepiece of the National Museum Of The Royal Navy
    1
  11.  @damicocu3860  evidently you and I have very different ideas of what constitutes both the term "vast experience" and of what an air-superiority jet-fighter is
    1
  12.  @DerDop  what, because I can accept the truth of our not being a superpower anymore while still being proud of my country nonetheless? AND thinking things look at least vaguely promising for the future too? 'Coz that's all it is. Here's hoping for my not being the only one then
    1
  13. Something I think Britain should do to get more tanks and artillery (and pretty much everything else) on a budget, and get a manufacturing industry started here again to make more ourselves, is follow Poland's lead and turn to the South Koreans
    1
  14. All except for that lower front glacis plate. Needs some Theatre Entry Standard "Megatron" Dorchester putting on there
    1
  15. Wrong. (A) the autoloader is not necessary if you have a highly-trained professional doing the loading, (B) the four guy crew is an advantage not a disadvantage, (C) all that weight is in armour and firepower and there's now gonna be sufficient engine to make up for it, and (D) it's getting the very latest most advanced stuff "attached to it" that any tank WILL have, the only obsolete thing around here related to Challenger 3 is what you're saying about it lol
    1
  16.  @alganhar1  damn right
    1
  17.  @komradearti9935  just because quote "everyone" is going for something, by which I suspect you mean the Russians, Chinese or other countries with derivations OF their tanks, that doesn't mean they're actually right to do so
    1
  18.  @Farweasel  I guess we should just be grateful Britain actually HAS any aircraft carriers at all though; knowing the British government's love of sweeping military budget-cuts whenever things are looking remotely tight in other areas, it's actually kinda amazing our Navy's still as large and capable as it IS
    1
  19.  @david_fisher  well a lot of aircraft were designed by people from outside the various companies, but it counts as a product of that company regardless if it's got their name on it
    1
  20.  @komradearti9935  you can send me all the bullshit articles likely written by the Russians or Chinese you want, doesn't change the truth of what I was saying, maybe look up "Dorchester" sometime
    1
  21. Well maybe not one-on-one no, but there's only four of those RAF Typhoons stationed ON the Falklands, which were more than enough for anything Argentina had up until now of course, but which with the acquisition of those new JF17's would suddenly find themselves badly outnumbered. The best answer's simply increasing the number of Typhoons and SAM's on the Falklands if you ask me, or failing that maybe sending the BAE Hawks that're now being slowly decommissioned down there but still have some hours left on them, as a cheap way to at least get some more planes in the area that can carry missiles
    1
  22.  @EdNashsMilitaryMatters  well yeah, didn't think she'd exactly be seaworthy still haha, but that hole underneath aside she WAS still remarkably intact when she went down- they really built those old wooden ships to last
    1
  23.  @EdNashsMilitaryMatters  do you think it'd be possible to raise whatever's left of her, alá the 'Mary Rose'?
    1
  24. @KISHANTH JEYAMOORTHY couldn't agree more
    1
  25.  @Boric78  if you're talking about the Type 26 Frigate the main hull of the first one, HMS Glasgow, is nearing completion as we speak, so you might wanna double-check your info there 😉
    1
  26.  @garyhewitt489  damn right lol
    1
  27.  @nuttall47  well they are still important for our troops on overseas deployments fighting elsewhere, but yeah it's not so much of a defensive priority for the home-islands at least
    1
  28.  @Ushio01  none of it is "pointless", why don't you tell the currently Carrier-building China and Russia how "pointless" our carriers are. Contrary to what most of the Internet seems to think the RAF and RN need those F35B's more than ever, have nothing but good things to say about them and have actually had very few problems with them (y'know, while actually flying them in real life, and blowing the shit out of ISIS with them in the process, rather than only doing the above in video games). No-one's claiming we need these tanks to defend the UK, we need them for if we have to fight overseas as part of a coalition again and have to send a taskforce of ground-troops into a bloody Middle-Eastern desert again. Oh and as for both types of submarines we're already building those either way and we're likely gonna build more if things keep getting hotter with China. As for F35A's specifically for the RAF for home-defense don't you think that's gonna be a bit of a stupid decision if we're gonna be building our OWN home-grown sixth-generation Tempest jets for that in only about ten years, especially given that in the meantime the existing Typhoon when given the latest upgrades and missiles is actually the superior air-to-air combat aircraft anyway
    1
  29.  @Ushio01  well we'll see about all you've said there won't we
    1
  30. Plainly you don't realise quite how small our defense budget is and how tight-fisted our government can be, we're lucky to have this many
    1
  31. Not really no, plus this will be just as good if not better than any new tank we COULD buy
    1
  32. I wish
    1
  33.  @dellawrence4323  well I disagree, but it doesn't matter anyway as the question simply won't arise in the first place, for better or worse the present UK government would simply never actually do it
    1
  34.  @billycaluwaerts3724  haha well you never know if so, might've led to something amazing, a drunken genius is still a genius
    1
  35.  @sidv4615  the radar and definitely the missiles are actually better in the Typhoon, and they're broadly comparable in everything else
    1
  36.  @EdNashsMilitaryMatters  hahaha while you're at it, look for my keys will you
    1
  37.  @alganhar1  couldn't agree more about that, those new QE-class aircraft carriers are truly something else (just wish we had more of the planes for them ready)
    1
  38. The guns are brand-new and still among the very best out there, frankly the only thing "41 years old and obsolete" around here is your information
    1
  39.  @thiscouldntblowmore  so is the basic design of anything they're likely to come up against
    1
  40. Bullsh*t, look up on Google what active protection systems are
    1
  41. depends what you call a "British" battleship doesn't it, yeah she was built here but she was paid for, used, fought & died in and honoured for it all by the Japanese
    1
  42.  @EdNashsMilitaryMatters  absolutely, worked pretty well in Iraq after all 🙂 thanks for getting back to me by the way! Love the videos 😁
    1
  43.  @tonyblack1964  And T-62's, T-64's and T-72's. Might be old and outdated but there was a SH*TLOAD of them, and they can all still pose a threat if upgraded and updated, each still has a pretty powerful & effective main gun after all; and there was also plenty of danger from infantry, both regular Iraqi army and insurgents, often laying ambushes and armed with RPG's, landmines, IED's and Milan anti-tank missiles, all legit threats if used right and all the same kinds of stuff Nato tanks would very likely still be going up against in a lot of other places too now. As I said before though, the combination of British & American tanks nonetheless came through the whole thing with flying colours in both Gulf Wars and I reckon that combination can succeed again now and for the foreseeable future
    1
  44.  @paultanton4307  if you say so
    1
  45.  @BritishFreedom  agreed
    1
  46.  @BritishFreedom  think the "trimming the fat" definitely does need to stop at this point though as there's not much more fat left to trim
    1
  47. Reproductions directly copied from the original perhaps?
    1
  48.  Jihadi Pundit  you'll be waiting a while, as that "Formula" is called President Joe Biden and he's, fortunately, a one-of-a-kind
    1
  49. Three or four A4 Skyhawks and an assortment of prop-planes
    1
  50. I wonder if it's possible to raise and then restore any of the sunken still mostly-intact battleships on the bottom, alá the movie "Raise The Titanic" haha, or indeed the real-life raising of 'Mary Rose' or 'Wasa'? I don't mean the ones that're war graves, they should be left to lie in peace for all time of course; I'm talking about the possibility of raising one of the battleships that went down with no-one aboard, like with the German fleet that scuttled itself at Scapa Flow
    1