General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

1IbramGaunt
BFBS Forces News
comments

Comments by "1IbramGaunt" (@1IbramGaunt) on "British Army Challenger 2 tanks display firepower alongside allies" video.

@Volume_Halome if you have complete air superiority as NATO very clearly would do then the artillery has a lot bigger things to worry about than looking for tanks lol
16
@kevinhorgan2770 what exactly makes you think NATO couldn't?! Given Russia's performance so far against Ukraine, compared with how they'd have to do against all of NATO, are you seriously trying to tell us you still think Russia could beat the rest of Europe AND America all combined?
10
@kevinhorgan2770 bear in mind we're not talking about JUST Britain or JUST America or JUST France, Germany, Italy or Poland or a half-dozen other places but ALL of them at once here, and this is a Russia remember that's been continually bleeding planes, pilots, missiles and jet fuel into Ukraine non-stop for 8 months, so no matter what you think their air-force was capable of before it's sure as hell not the case now
8
@JG-ib7xk yeah and America (and now Ukraine) have radar-seeking missiles specifically designed & built to seek and destroy Russian anti-air systems, NATO had the entire Cold War to prepare for a confrontation with Russia, and America in particular actually had the budget to match all it's goals unlike Russia
5
@00shakz12 what T14 lol, they only ever made about 20 of the things and they never got into service
5
@des_smith7658 is it really though, or is that just what daddy Putin wants you to claim to believe
5
@lifestapestry2968 it actually really was in WW1 haha
4
There's about a hundred more elsewhere and much more still back in the UK, this is just a squadron sent to train alongside our allies in Poland. They're also Challenger 2 MBT's, among the best-protected and most powerful tanks on Earth, more than a match for anything Russia has, each is worth a battalion of old T-72 junkheaps
3
@thecurlew7403 what the hell do you mean "another" that can't be fixed?! yeah the Ajax was a dog's dinner but it was a one-off, it means nothing in regard to any other project especially not naval ones. HMS Glasgow, first of the Type 26's is coming together nicely so far but hasn't even been launched yet, so it's a bit early to be passing judgements, and it's predecessor the Type 23 has given pretty much perfect service for 20-odd years; as for the Type 45's the only thing really ever wrong with them was the engines which ARE now finally being fixed, that's WHY most of them are in dock
3
@michaelmazowiecki9195 are you an accountant or something as you definitely seem to be hung up entirely on the numbers here and are not the least bit interested in the quality over quantity aspect, as I'd rather have ten fantastic warships than a hundred mediocre ones any day
3
@00shakz12 if it was just the European side of NATO maybe, maybe not, if it was that AND America then yes NATO definitely would, and if you're refusing to recognise that you're just plain in denial
3
@zhufortheimpaler4041 you mean the air-defences we have long-range radar-seeking missiles designed to specifically seek out and target?
3
@zhufortheimpaler4041 yeah and how's that been working out for Russia so far against whatever ancient museum-pieces Ukraine has been using let alone F35 Stealth-fighters
3
Not that I've ever seen they didn't, care to provide any evidence for that? Given we never actually sent any of these to Afghanistan? 🙂
2
It is pretty scary if the best you have to confront them with is a T72, just ask the Iraqi's lol
2
@kwlkid85 yes and it will HAVE the TES package won't it, as for it's gun tell that to an Iraqi lol
2
@kwlkid85 and what modern tanks is it likely to come up against? I suppose the T-90 or T-80 might pose more of a threat, but Russia doesn't have many of those and is losing more by the week, and the rest of the Russian tanks are just T-72's with some slapped-on minor upgrades, again, ask an Iraqi how well those would do against any NATO tank...
2
@kwlkid85 in any event the Challenger 3 upgrade should solve all of the above problems anyway and so all the Challenger 2 as it stands has to do is hold the line till that comes about, which trust me it's more than capable of doing
2
@kwlkid85 they strongly considered the 130mm, they didn't build two whole different demonstrator Challengers with it for a laugh, there's REASONS they didn't go with it you know- the new guns would've been too expensive, the ammo type would've meant still not using the NATO standard and therefore being limited to our own supplies rather than being able to resupply from our allies's stocks, and most importantly the shells were too large to be able to carry a sufficient number with the existing ammo storage space and expanding said ammo space would've left insufficient space for other equipment and efficient crew-movement. The only way to properly accommodate it would've meant basically building a whole new tank for which money we could've bought a whole battalion of Leopard 2's or Abrams. Either way though that new smoothbore Rheinmettal 120mm firing the latest ammo will be more than enough for going on with, and can be improved with better APFSDS as time goes on
2
@kwlkid85 how exactly do you believe the T-72 would be "effectively immune" anyway? Because it has a few blocks of Kontact 5 mounted at frankly stupid angles around the turret cheeks?
2
@kwlkid85 not without a giant stupid cylindrical autoloader behind paper-thin pig-iron steel it wouldn't lol, the turret-tossing is an all-Russian party-trick I'm afraid lol, and as for NATO adopting the 130mm as standard we'll see about that won't we, not seeing many new designs with it though and those that do are early prototypes that look scary and look like the future- buuuuttt may well never end up going anywhere, just like the T14 Armata that 130mm was intended to defeat lol
2
@kwlkid85 as for present CR2 ammo storage I dunno about that, we don't seem to have lost any to enemy action last time I checked, or any of the older Challenger 1 for that matter, yet dozens of oh-so-superior Abrams and Leopards have been lost. You'd think if the basic Challenger design was really so fundamentally flawed we'd have lost at least one to an IED or missile or RPG or something, but no. Only one we lost was to a freak accident involving another "Chally"
2
Quality over quantity, just how many spares do you need against 30-year-old T-72's
2
If we had to, around 150 could be deployed right now with maybe the same again brought out of storage with some work done. Against really modern stuff they'd be outnumbered, outdated and outclassed sure but against ancient Soviet T-62's and T-72's? it would not be a good day to be a Russian tanker haha. As for "tanks are easily killed" depends on the tank and depends what it's up against, everyone thought the day of the tank was over before the Iraq Wars too
2
@digdougedy and how's that second largest air-force been working out for them so far haha, as for Britain trust me we can field a f*ck of a lot more than that a very long way in a very short time indeed, just ask Argentina, and Ukraine is a LOT closer than the Falklands. As for that Russian standing army, maybe change the word "have" to "had", IF the numbers ON what Russia had were accurate in the first place mind. You've also lost 40% of your total tank-force already, and your air-force and navy are barely involved in the conflict and practically useless because they're simply not equipped to fight an enemy that barely HAS ones of it's own, yet DOES have state-of-the-art ground-based anti-ship & anti-air defenses. Oh yeah and overall you're running pretty damn low on cruise missiles, drones and artillery shells and aren't in a position to make more when you do run out, or are North Korea and Iran just selling you more right now out of the kindness of their hearts (says something when those two are who mighty Russia has to turn to for help doesn't it)
2
@alessiodecarolis Nah the Challenger 3 upgrade hasn't happened yet, blame peacetime government penny-pinching, so the Challengers are still using rifled 120mm guns instead. They'll have brought plenty of their own ammo along though don't worry, and it's still more than a match for the old scrapheaps the Russians are using
2
And yes, 9 tanks. Like the 9 tanks the Americans once used to take out an entire Iraqi BRIGADE
2
@zhufortheimpaler4041 yes, the penetrator is shorter than a smoothbore equivalent would be, but there's no T-72 built it still wouldn't be able to penetrate anyway from any angle because a bit of slapped-on ERA doesn't actually make it a modern tank, the base armour of the tank is no better regardless of the model, and the second it DOES get penetrated we get to see it's turret-popping party-piece haha. As for it getting through the armour on the Challenger 2/3, not with the TES extra armour-blocks fitted it can't, which WOULD be fitted if these were actually gonna be going into combat
2
@user-rk5cu5tg2g And YOU seem to forget "my friend" that we have nukes too? meaning you can't use yours without getting nuked right back? Mutually Assured Destruction, it's a concept Russia should be very familiar with
2
@user-rk5cu5tg2g we are, but because of the above we consider threats to use them against a fellow nuclear-armed country to be pretty empty ones at this point
2
We'll see won't we, this war has only proved that Russia's truly obsolete Soviet-era junkheaps don't belong on a modern battlefield and that the Russians really need to work on their air-defences and methods of trying to gain air-superiority, it's proved nothing whatsoever about modern western tanks like the Abrams, Leopard 2, LeClerc or Challenger 2, backed up by purpose-designed MODERN anti-drone and anti-air defenses, no-one's expecting the tanks themselves to shoot drones down, we have specialist support units for that intended to closely ACCOMPANY the tanks. Hell Ukraine's downing 70% of what's being thrown at them in terms of drones and cruise missiles just with whatever anti-air systems THEY have left
2
We have a permanent NATO base in Germany that always has some of these stationed at it I believe
2
Completely agreed but if we did we'd have to outsource the production as the original factory where they were built's gone, and it'd cost a LOT more time and money to build brand-new tanks from scratch than it ever would to just upgrade existing ones, so sadly with our penny-pinching government I just don't see it happening. What MIGHT happen though is that we simply increase the number that ARE being upgraded, which this new relatively conventional tank-on-tank European war happening has given me some hope for
2
@michaelmazowiecki9195 What exactly WOULD you call "major global power projection" then as most people seemed pretty impressed by CSG-21? We're getting the planes slowly but surely and will eventually have enough for both carriers and DO have enough for one minimal air-wing right now (and that's without augmenting it with US Marine ones again), HMS Prince Of Wales will be fixed soon enough and can be fixed a lot sooner in an emergency should she suddenly be desperately needed for some reason (although with all things considered I can't imagine what that could be while we still have her sister-ship and all our allies's navies to call upon). Remember there's still very few countries out there that even HAVE functional full-sized aircraft-carriers capable of operating fixed-wing jets AT ALL, and these Queen Elizabeth-class ones are the ONLY ones out there right now with state-of-the-art, top-of-the-line F35 Stealth-jets as their primary aircraft. As for other stuff more escort warships including two classes of brand-new frigates are being built as we speak, our destroyers are finally getting their troublesome engines fixed and we're also building new submarines, patrol vessels and support ships, even experimental drone-boats; and as for the Falklands?! frankly I'd like to see Argentina try lol, they couldn't even overcome the garrison we already HAVE down there now, if you want to talk about once-strong militaries becoming weak ones try looking at THEIRS and see if you still feel the same way about ours by comparison
2
@michaelmazowiecki9195 so yeah I think your prediction of Britain suddenly selling both our own brand-new carriers with all that going on when we've already put so much time, effort and money into them is pretty damn optimistic haha, expecially since Australia could never afford them lol, surprising way of thinking for someone like you
2
@michaelmazowiecki9195 oh yeah and I'm still waiting to hear your explanation of just how the hell you think Argentina, or ANY South American nation for that matter is gonna be in a position to threaten the Falkland Islands again in any way our current forces couldn't immediately counter, hell just the garrison already stationed down there in fact? let alone the forces we'll have by the next decade (which I believe WILL be considerably stronger in every way)?
2
@michaelmazowiecki9195 as for the whole Russia thing and how comparitively weak British forces have gotten since the Cold War, yeah, it sucks, it doesn't mean they're completely impotent now and that there's no improvements being made though which is the points I was making. We do have support ships and more are being built, we do have bases all around the world both of our own and in friendly nation's hands, and we do have an increased defence budget supposedly coming that should bring it up to somewhere between 3 and 4%, not what it could be but better
2
@michaelmazowiecki9195 in any event I'm sorry for being so rude before but I've unfortunately gotten all-too used to encountering trolls on here, in particular Putin's propaganda-bots, thought you were one so I apologise
2
@michaelmazowiecki9195 the question would not arise in the first place however simply due to the fact the Falklands are defended to an extent there is no way the Argentines could possibly take them again, without reinforcements or a taskforce even being needed. Those four (yes, just four because numbers are not everything) RAF Eurofighter Typhoons just by themselves being stationed there (combined of course with the radar sites, patrol-ship, rotated-deployment warship and/or submarine, anti-air batteries and over a thousand troops too but those four fighter jets in particular), completely guarantee the safety of the Falkland Islands from any future invasion
2
@michaelmazowiecki9195 the heck are you talking about? The first of the Tyoe 45 Daring-class destroyers was only launched in 2006! And yes, a decision HAS been made to eventually replace the Type 45's but they're still new enough to not really need a replacement very urgently, however sometime in the mid-to-late 2030's or early 2040's they'll be phased out and replaced with Type 83's. As for the frigates they date from 1989 to 2002 so you're not entirely wrong there but not entirely right either
2
@derf9465 and that's good for the drones sure, right up until Starstreak or SkySabre blow them out of the sky, and that's without the RAF even helping. Britain is not Ukraine
2
yes, nine, like the nine tanks that wiped out a whole brigade of T-72's in the first Gulf War
1
We have many more than 9 as you well know, but even if we somehow didn't even just these 9 tanks are still easily a match for three times their number of old Soviet rustbuckets
1
Could is not the same as will. There's been people saying some new development or other is "the end of the tank" and that "tanks are obsolete" for longer than anyone in this comments section has been ALIVE, yet on the tank rolls through war after war, all round the world; and we've still yet to see what those shoulder-launched missiles can do against a truly MODERN tank, something like these Challenger 2's with Depleted-Uranium Chobham/Dorchester composite armour and Laser-Warning Receivers, along with the option of the new Active Protection Systems like Trophy as well which the coming-soon upgrade of this, the Challenger 3, will also have. Until a tank with all that included has been taken out by such a missile? it's not spelled the end of anything more than some outdated Soviet relic that should've been retired decades ago anyway, rather than tanks in general
1
depends on the bigger guy, doesn't matter matter how big and strong the guy LOOKS as opposed how big and strong he actually IS
1
see my above comment. Anyone mocking the idea of what "only" nine Challenger 2's can do against old Soviet T-72 sh*theaps clearly doesn't know their history very well
1
@johnallen7807 on paper sure, but how modern and in what condition do you think those 5000 tanks are gonna be if he hasn't sent them in yet? all his really good modern ones (well unless you count about 20 T14 parade-floats) are already there, whether they be still in service, captured, destroyed or damaged and awaiting repairs; even most of his older ones from the old Soviet supply depots are either there too with reserve units or being re-activated then headed TO Ukraine. I suspect most of the rest of that impressive on-paper number of tanks, supposedly still ready and waiting in Russia somewhere, were actually sold off years ago to other countries, that or cannibalised for spare parts, or in some cases will've just been too far gone to be brought back to combat readiness after too many decades left parked up in all elements with little maintenence
1
@johnallen7807 well for static defence if the gun was still serviceable yeah I could see them being useful that way even if they don't work as tanks, basically like WW2 coastal artillery-pillboxes; you still have to actually get them to somewhere within range of the Ukrainians though and if the tank itself has become completely seized up and inoperable after being left to rust in a field for 30 years, that ain't gonna be easy
1
Not "any", no, depends on the tank, depends on the weapon, depends on the crews operating each, depends on the circumstances and depends what your idea of "modern" is. Bear in mind that until recently everyone thought everything the Russians had was a "modern" weapon that could beat any opponent with older stuff too
1
The few we have are among the best in the world and able to wipe the floor with Russia's ex-Soviet junk, sure we should have more but people still seem way too focused on quantity over quality, if quantity was all that mattered Putin would've beaten Ukraine in about five minutes
1
@jjsmallpiece9234 that simply wouldn't happen, again, we're part of NATO, we have allies with plenty of tanks who'd always be there all around us in any conflict big enough to involve British tanks in the first place, therefore we don't need vast quantities ourselves, just enough to make a worthwhile contribution to a larger force. Obviously it'd be NICE if we had more but these things do cost a lot of money and there's only so much defence budget to go round. My hope though is that with this new relatively conventional peer-to-peer conflict going on not so far away from us that the government may see the need FOR more tanks and allocate the funds needed, say increase the number of these being upgraded to Challenger 3 in the near future, we'll just have to wait and see
1
And? They're worth three times that number of crappy old T-72's
1
@Old-Dog00 Not if the Challenger 2 sees it first they can't, and I mean from three miles away, with a combination of satellite, aircraft and drone recon and the tank's own third-generation thermal imagers for both the commander and gunner, so the chances of the Challenger NOT being the first one to see the other are pretty damn low, and even if the T-72 somehow DID both see the Challenger first and line up a shot, AND have the right shell loaded AND fire in time hitting bang on target (because if he misses he's sure as hell not getting time for a second shot)? still got the latest Dorchester depleted Uranium composite armour to get through, a more advanced version of the Chobham armour you'll find on an M1A2 Abrams, against which for comparison the T-72... haaaasss some half-decent ERA, if it's lucky and that isn't actually rubber or cardboard made to LOOK like ERA haha
1
They don't need to when not actually under fire do they, and those things weigh a lot
1
@kwlkid85 oh and the not using NATO standard ammo thing isn't by choice you know lol, we only COULD use our own ammo; BUT on the sort-of plus-side we also did have large stocks OF both that ammo and the guns that fired it, and it would've been costing too much and wasting too much to buy replacements while we still had them and they could still do the job; there was also the added bonus that it fired HESH rounds unlike a smoothbore one, no good for anti-armour anymore but excellent for blasting terrorist compounds
1
@kwlkid85 it's two-part ammunition so yes it is kept safe, by it's own design, the only part of it that can be set off is the explosive charge part and those are kept seperate from the rest and inside an armoured water-filled container with seperate compartments until ready for use, you'd have to hit the Challenger in one very specific place and get through a LOT more armour first. The ammo in Soviet tanks is kept in a giant cylindrical autoloader thing that runs right around the outer hull of the tank with the shells all assembled, primed and ready to go, the minute one shell is set off by a hit it sets off a chain reaction in the other shells either side, that simply wouldn't happen with Challenger ammo
1
@kwlkid85 that was a tandem-charge RPG-29, one of the most powerful kinds of RPG, and it was fired at a pre-TES Challenger with just some ERA over the lower plate, AND it hit said lower plate right as the tank was climbing a ramp so it was exposed; any other tank penetrated that way (and a lot of different tanks would've been under the same circumstances), would've likely been completely destroyed inside and the crew killed, or would've at the very least been temporarily disabled. All that happened to that Challenger though WAS that driver being injured, and he still managed to drive the tank out of there, everyone else inside was fine and both him AND said tank made full recoveries, with nothing else subsequently thrown at it from any other angle penetrating the armour, and a LOT was thrown at it before support arrived to drive off the enemy
1
@kwlkid85 if the T14 hasn't made it into service by now it's not going to mate, they only made about 20 of the things and were having a lot of issues with them, and that was BEFORE this whole stupid war happened and half the stuff needed to make them suddenly became unavailable, thanks to a combination of crippling sanctions, of nobody wanting to be friends with Russia anymore and of all the factory workers either being conscripted or leaving the country en-masse. As for the T-90 how many do you think they're gonna have left by the time it ever gets within gun-range of a NATO tank lol, IF it ever gets to
1
@JKK_85 nothing further to say there then?
1
@reccerat4446 Sure the platform is just as old if not older haha but so is the Abrams, another NATO tank with similar firepower and armour, and how many T-72's did nine Abrams knock out in one day in the 1991 Gulf War at the battle of 73 Easting? "EINSTEIN"?! I don't need to have served to know this stuff and you having done (which anyone on the internet can claim doing without having to show proof) is, contrary to popular belief, not a pre-requisite for knowing more than someone who hasn't, indeed it can often have the opposite effect, since, having apparently served in one of these tanks yourself (IF you really have at all), you therefore immediately assume you know all there is to know about it without having to actually do any additional research and with a very your-own-experience-only biased perspective, whereas I'm coming at it with a fresh, relatively non-biased objective one
1
I know right
1
@frankrenda2519 we'll see won't we
1
@thewomble1509 well we'll have to wait and see but I don't think the question of conscription will arise either way, thanks to NATO we should have sufficient forces for the foreseeable just with the professional troops we already have no matter how few they are (who are gonna be way more valuable than any conscript anyway) while our allies provide the numbers, however frankly if the situation were grim enough TO ever really require conscription, 1940-style? then people would simply not be given a choice, that's kinda how conscription works after all (and we HAVE had National Service in the not-so-distant-past mind, and people weren't happy about it then either but were forced to go anyway, my grandfather among them)
1
@garagenigel tell that to Russia lol
1
@garmfield2977 running low is not the same as running out
1
@ln5747 if they need to get there in a hurry from back here in the UK or somewhere else like Germany? big-ass transport planes combined with air-to-air refueling, something we can use and they can't, little thing called total air-superiority, at least while over our own territory. NATO does already have forces nice and close to the action though, including some British forces as you can see
1
@ln5747 the Russian air-defences have yet to be proven as any such thing, and as for their air-force existing, frankly against NATO's combined might it soon wouldn't
1
@HO-bndk what Jag would that be you're talking about then, since the company's still around and still producing cars now? 🙂
1
@petrmelichar3565 yeah well they're not IN capable hands are they and getting fewer by the month
1
@zhufortheimpaler4041 and I'm always fascinated how you foriegners always continue to underestimate anything British until it's too late... as for everything you've said I'm not going to argue with all of that directly but if the driver's hatch "massive hole" was really that big of a weak-spot you'd think that'd have lead to major problems by now, it hasn't, and all I can go by is what we've seen in real combat rather than theoretical battles, and frankly ALL tanks are gonna have that "weak spot" to some extent or other yet you never seem to see many destroyed tanks that've actually been taken out that way. I do know that that Kontact 5 ERA doesn't seem to be helping Russian tanks much right now even against other old Soviet armour, let alone modern NATO weaponry, and that's assuming it all actually WAS real Explosive Reactive Armour and not blocks of rubber or cardboard lol
1
@zhufortheimpaler4041 oh and as for "ammunition cookoff similar to T-72" yeah the massive easily-detonated autoloader on the Challenger 2 makes it a deathtrap doesn't it... OH WAIT
1
@zhufortheimpaler4041 yes well we HAVE been giving them vast numbers of modern missiles but no modern tanks with modern armour, it remains to be seen how one of those would do against a missile like that because it simply hasn't actually come about yet
1
@zhufortheimpaler4041 those were all older low-grade export models without the Depleted Uranium armour, without APS or ERA, and they were also being frankly crewed by idiots and supported by even bigger idiots, in particular without effective infantry support to smoke out those missile-teams, much like the Russian tanks in Ukraine. By "modern tank" you know damn well I wasn't talking about anything being used by Saudi Arabia or Turkey and sure as hell not anything used by IRAQ of all places lol. As for the Chieftain it's hardly a modern tank worthy of comparison anymore is it
1
@zhufortheimpaler4041 as for the good support thing or you're dead yes no-one's denying that, it's one of the things I'VE previously said lol
1
I think you'll find you can "deter" quite a lot haha when the "hordes" are T-72's (y'know like Saddam's in 1991 & 2003), and you're behind several inches of Dorchester 2 depleted uranium armour in a 70-ton beast with the latest thermal imagers and a gun that can take out an enemy tank from 3 miles away, AND have the entirety of NATO backing you so all the supplies, infantry & artillery you could ever need plus complete air-superiority
1
What "grinder"?
1
@lifestapestry2968 depends on the river, the tank- and on what other units are with the tank. The British Army has special armoured bridge-laying vehicles, specifically for providing one quickly where there isn't already, even while under enemy fire
1
@lifestapestry2968 and as I've already said, if our armoured units like those in this video actually went into combat they would enjoy complete air-superiority in a way neither the Russians nor Ukrainians have at any point in the current war, the entire unmatched combined air-power of NATO; backed up too with advanced ground-based air-defence units like our new Sky-Sabre system. Enemy artillery wouldn't even be that big a deal since practically the minute an enemy gun fired it'd be spotted on satellite and targeted by counter-battery fire and ground-strike aircraft of our own, but it'd still be a much bigger worry for our tanks than drones ever would be
1
Tired of saying this but numbers are not everything, quality beats quantity every time in modern warfare and these nine tanks are each worth a whole battalion of Putin's scrapheaps
1
@baghdadbob9943 if we do, so be it! You say that like it's a bad thing
1
@kwlkid85 well let's hope you're right and that's exactly what happens, although the more modern tanks the merrier either way
1
Not yet but the day may be coming
1
It's a hell of a lot better than anything the mighty superpower Russia can currently "project" lol so surely that's all that matters
1
Quality over quantity, and not yet but they could be made to be
1
@thecurlew7403 how do you explain there being more than one at sea right now then? :)
1
@Retrosicotte couldn't agree more, he's either a Russian bot or has his head so far up America's arse he can't see daylight
1
@jamiegray6931 you forgot HMS Belfast, HMS Warrior and HMS Victory haha 😉
1
@michaelmazowiecki9195 we'll see won't we, personally I think if you truly believe all that despite everything I've said, and with no actual evidence to support what you're saying yet because it's still all in the future, you're either an alarmist defeatist doom-monger that sees everything in only the most black negative way possible OR just a paid Russian or Chinese bot, either way I now very much look forward to seeing you be proved as a complete horseshitter on all counts
1
@michaelmazowiecki9195 the Falklands incidentally does bring to light one reason we desperately NEED a strong navy especially aircraft carriers, and a blue-water navy at that, and that is because we do still have small far-flung territories, bases, colonies, weak-but-close allies and Commonwealth countries all over the world that we're supposed to help protect. It's not always ABOUT just "power projection" but about actual military capability in places a very long way from home. If the Falklands War had happened but we'd not had those two carriers, just like now, we WOULD have lost that war, because while it was contested even with them, WITHOUT the carriers there the Argentines would've had total air-superiority, and we're seeing right now in Ukraine what it's like fighting a war when that's the case. Before 1982 I bet a lot of people were calling the then-new Invincible-class carriers "anachronistic" too
1
@michaelmazowiecki9195 sorry didn't see your replies immediately and well as for the far east and the US-command thing we'll see, again CSG-21 happened smoothly enough and that was just with American help not under American command; plenty of other allies operate navies down there too, Australia, India, South Korea, New Zealand, Japan, all under American GUIDANCE perhaps but not under American control, and if we did send a task-force down there it'd be to help one or all of them out, not to act solely out of our own interests, doesn't need to be a NATO operation for that to happen
1
@digdougedy and where exactly is your proof for your statement about us not being able to do what we did in 1982 again? Hmm? We don't have as many tanks, planes and ships etc overall as we did then it's true, but everything we DO have is so much more modern, advanced and powerful that we don't NEED such large numbers of them, not when we have NATO and in particular the Americans backing us to provide numbers where we can't
1
@michaelmazowiecki9195 think you've got that the wrong way round about the frigates and destroyers as it's the destroyers that're the newer ones? and with warship ages 20 years is nothing, see the Russian navy for proof lol. The Falklands fleet consisted of only around 40 actual warships and of those half were themselves verging on obsolescence at the time, I wish we still had that many don't get me wrong but we can't afford it, however our navy IS at least getting stronger now, and everything in what fleet we DO have is far superior to anything in that Falklands-era fleet. As for our government's claims about not being able to retake them again let's just say I strongly and extremely disrespectfully disagree
1
@michaelmazowiecki9195 there will be no foreseeable operation those 250 tanks will be involved in, or that'll see Challenger 2's deployed in anger of any numbers in fact, that will not also involve allied tanks from other countries to help make up the numbers, and indeed involve other units such as artillery, drones, helicopters and mechanised infantry in Warriors or Boxers. The tanks will operate as part of a larger whole or not at all
1
Hey it's getting there slowly, this Ukraine war was just the kick in the pants NATO needed, and in the meantime Poland has Leopard 2's as seen in the video
1
@Walterwaltraud not that simple unfortunately
1
@Walterwaltraud I meant in terms of nobody wanting this already-horrible mess to escalate into WW3, otherwise there likely would've been actual NATO troops deployed into combat in Ukraine by now not just weapons and supplies sent
1
@danm8412 bdm-tssshh!
1
@garagenigel other way around?
1
@sasa1982uk well yes, no argument I can really make against that statement is there, as we indeed have no real-life basis to really judge that on. All we can do is take the evidence of what real wars HAVE happened, including the one going on right now, combine it with what technical knowledge we have about the various weapons-systems and draw conclusions accordingly as best we can
1
@ln5747 which part?
1
Quality over quantity
1
@bigmatthews666 the Challenger 2 MBT might be getting old and outdated now but it's still one of the best-protected and most potent tanks in the world, can easily match and beat a T-90 or T-80 any day and is CERTAINLY more than a match for any ancient Soviet T-72 or T-62 with slight upgrades. Just nine American Abrams tanks of similar capabilities and toughness once took out an entire BRIGADE of Iraqi armour all by themselves during the first Gulf War
1
yes? and? nine American Abrams tanks took out an entire Iraqi BRIGADE by themselves during Desert Storm
1
@j.calvert3361 they don't have the Abrams or Black Panther yet and they don't have all that many Leopard 2's, they are slowly modernising yes but most of their force is still older stuff
1
what "gap"? and maybe look up the Battle Of 73 Easting before you mock the idea of 9 modern MBT's against old Soviet junkheaps too loudly lol
1
@ravingtaz29 I think he means specifically to enemy fire and fire from enemy tanks, ATGM's or RPG's in particular though
1
@zhufortheimpaler4041 RPG-29 you mean and well the tank wasn't actually destroyed though was it, or even that badly damaged really, and the driver survived and was actually still able to drive the still-functional tank to safety; it was then quickly repaired and sent back into action (I doubt you could say the same about one of your beloved T-72's under the same circumstances if that'd been penetrated at it's weakest spot like that haha), and the incident would then inspire the creation of the Theatre Entry Standard extra armour package, which can and will prevent that incident from being repeated
1
@zhufortheimpaler4041 yeah well clearly you're talking out of your arse right now as while you'd be right about that with any other sort of armour Dorchester can stop any heat round in it's tracks, it's not about the thickness it's what it's made of. That particular tank just didn't have TES on it yet, and no, the RPG would never have completely destroyed the tank through a lower front glacis penetration like that no matter what angle it was fired from, and sure as hell wouldn't detonate the ammunition (again it's multi-part ammunition with the propellant part stored in a specially-designed armoured water-filled container low-down in the centre of the vehicle, you'd need a direct hit on it with an APFSDS round in a very specific place for that). The RPG might've taken out the driver but nothing else, and in this case not even that; nobody else was seriously injured and that tank was back in action within 24 hours. As for the 2006 roadside bomb incident I think you're talking about yeah, he lost his legs and one other guy was minorly injured, but that sure as hell was no mere RPG that time. The tank was still repairable and the whole crew survived, and that time from a massive point-blank IED blast that would've torn one of your precious T-72's clean in half and of the same sort that had been doing far worse damage to other supposedly-superior vehicles like the Abrams. Nobody's saying the Challenger 2 is invincible mind, as they said at the time about that incident "No one has ever said Challenger tanks are impenetrable. We have always said a big enough bomb will defeat any armour and any vehicle." It doesn't take away from the fact that in this case the bomb still WASN'T big enough and that yet again the armour did it's job with flying colours, that tank is easily one of the toughest if not THE toughest on Earth and the facts do back me up in that statement, whether you're prepared to accept it or not
1
@zhufortheimpaler4041 again, no Challenger 2's have ever been completely destroyed to hostile fire or other enemy action, and the only actual crew fatalities were from a blue-on-blue incident. It's seen as much action in the same sorts of circumstances as any of it's NATO contemporaries, GIVEN it's relatively limited numbers of course, but still, no Challengers lost. Like it or not it's still not something any of the other modern NATO tanks (the ones that've seen actual combat of the same sort) can boast. Feel free to actually disprove any of that statement with real provable facts rather than theorisation anytime you like, I'll wait
1