Comments by "Sedna063" (@Sedna063) on "BFBS Forces News" channel.

  1. Other way round. Rifled is ineffective
    8
  2.  @gazza2933  He is salty that be buy gas from Russia
    8
  3. First of all, you can't fire HEAT as the spin of the round would disturb the ray of liquid metal. basic physics. Second, rifled guns fire a slower projectile as the rifling slows down the round. Third, your ammo type HESH is outdated. I mean, Kevlar inlinings in the tank will protect the tank. HESH will be able to kill a Humvee, the DM63 will go through 10.
    5
  4.  @ashleystyles6888  Well, easy to say when you let France and Russia provide the battlefield and hide away in WW2 from 1940 - 1944, letting Russia do the dirty work. Did you know that 80% of all German casualties fell in the East. Britain in WW2 was like the guy that comes late to a brawl, makes a few hits and then brags in front of the girls that he did beat up that guy. Neither do we Germans aspire new wars. Wars always produces loosers, only one will be better of than the other.
    4
  5. You forget a few things that are vital - all of you. A rifled gun uses the rifling to give the ammo a drill for stabilisation. Now that is something that takes away kinetic energy. Hence why British tanks can't use KE penetrators to the same effectiveness like the US, Germany, Russia, France do. The British require a HESH round, which aren't effective against modern armour anymore (but great for demolition). So we have a greater distance they can reach but they won't be able to take the enemy tank out. Kinda negates that
    3
  6. Far fewer Challenger IIs have been built.... And if you run it like the Turks, they could wreck it too.
    2
  7.  @BritishFreedom  HESH is great for unarmoured vehicles and doing splash damage. Not so good when you try to neutralise enemy tanks.
    2
  8. What are you even talking about?
    2
  9.  @tsu8003  You want to leave the EU. Do you expect that you can keep all the advantages? Did you believe Farage when he lied to you, telling you it would be easy?
    2
  10.  @m4a1z1  France is actually more capable than the UK.
    2
  11.  @tsu8003  A bogus claim. The French have 1 nuclear carrier that is fully operational and far more Rafales than the British have F35B. The Rafale can carry more weapons, has a longer range, is a far superior aerodynamic platform and doesn't rely on a single engine. Moreover, the French use a CATOBAR system and can launch their Rafale's fully loaded without making space for a second lifting engine as the F35B needs. The only thing really going for the F35 is stealth and the electronic suit. But the Rafale is acknowledged to have a state of the art electronic warfare system (SPECTRA) that could offset a lot of the supposed advantage the F35B has in that regard. Future upgrades are also possible, in fact, F4 standard is prepared to increase sensor fusion... I am not sure I would like the odds of an F35B against an Rafale. Rafale is widely acknowledged to be one of the best fighters currently in the arsenal of NATO, right along F22 and Eurofighter Typhoon.
    2
  12.  Hammer 001  Oh yes. I daresay France has a much better marine aviation right now and enjoys a force that isn't as depleted as the UK. It is rated higher on the global military fire power than the UK right now and I would say it will continue to be in the future. Otherwise, both countries are rather similar indeed in terms of numbers such as GDP et cetera.
    2
  13. Changes everyday. The plan is to get 320 tanks to A7V standard.
    2
  14. You mean Russia?
    2
  15. ruben gomez Nah, the EF can absolutely hold itself during BVR and in WVR too. After all it was designed to kill anything from the Flanker family
    2
  16. This is NATO. By the way, the UK isn’t the only member to dispatch forces to other countries without a 21st century air force
    2
  17. That is like saying all planes are reverse engineered because they have wings.....
    2
  18. Kaiser Wilhelm II Actually quite good. So far no catastrophic WW. Only the army needs some love
    2
  19. Are those Beidu satellites able to follow the carrier? I don't think so
    2
  20. So you think the americans would fit a "inferior" cannon into the 8000 MTB's they want to built so they can fight off the russians just to sell the germans a few AWACS? I can't see cost efficiency
    1
  21. I can't read the book and secondly, I can't belive that. KE is better at penetrating tanks nowadays and has been so, HESH can be easily blocked with Kevlar inlayings. Again, would you rather sell a few planes (300 million alltogether) for the price that your tanks are "worthless" or would you rather not sell AWACS to the germans and instead get a gun which is superior to any russian or other counterpart there is.
    1
  22. How often, I am not reading this book. I don't know anything about it. There are no data that support your evidence, then there is my data, that say 8000 Abrams built with the superior german cannon + 4000 Leopard built with this cannon and only 500 challenger II with his cannon. Jesus Christ, a military plane costs at this timee roughly 70 million, the AWACS. A cannon costs 1. And Germany never owned AWACS and never paid some, don't you think that this would cancel every deal the americans would have made.
    1
  23. We talk about tank cannons, not about rifles, do we? Because there is a big difference in the design of both.
    1
  24. Rifled do not use KE since their speed is too slow
    1
  25. YOu got no clue, Chobham is used on Abrams, you mean Dorchester.
    1
  26. You got no Idea about tanks. Leopard is faster, got superior gun and to be fair, your Challenger would have had the same problems in urban environment, you know that, generals know that.
    1
  27. At least, german tanks can drive through minefields without blowing up. And secondly, only Oman wanted your tank, nobody else does. They all want the "Useless" Leopard 2 and 1. Nobody remembers Chieftain.
    1
  28. The Leopard costs roughly the same as the Challenger II. The leopard costs some 5.5 Million Dollars and the challenger some 5.6 Million. That 100,000 is not what makes the military decide for a tank. And for the record, a much bigger number of Leopard have been built than of Challengers. So it is quite easy to for something to happen. Still, your tank is not perfect either. Your armour may be frontally better, who knows, other than people with military clearance but I guarantee you, Leopard outguns and outruns the Challenger.
    1
  29. Ok, you must be a troll. Search for combat History. It was in Afghanistan and nothing happened there that wouldn't have happened with a Challenger II. It was in Kosovo. Same for Turkey. Secondly, the variant the turks got was built in 1992, whereas challenger II was built in 1994. So you can't compare them as roughly ten years of development time are between them. There are many that want to buy new tanks. The dutch, the arabs, the Quataris, all bought or wanted to buy the latest variants. Just accept it, the reason why the turkish lost the tanks was the wrong tactic, not the wrong tank. The tank is great, has superior gun and superior maneuvrability. It is also cheaper to make and many military experts and magazines put it into the top two of the tanks, whereas Challenger II rarely makes an appearance in the top 3. http://www.awesomeengineering.net/top-10-best-military-tanks-world/ https://www.sofmag.com/the-best-5-main-battle-tanks-in-the-world/ Find me two top ten listst that put Challenger 2 first.
    1
  30. You know that the Leopard got an ammorack designed similar to the Challenger 2 to eject any expolsion upwards? You also know that you can't compare the tanks on armour as it is classified? You also understand that tanks are not all about armour? You understand that different types of armour serve different types of armament? It may be so but I may be not like this. But I know for sure a challenger II wold never crack a Leopard frontally.
    1
  31. 2 part ammo, one of the reason why the gun sucks so hard and secondly, Chobham is only frontally, I wonder how the Challenger 2 would have worked in cities. And turkey says that only two have been hit, even though I don't believe Turkey or ISIS.
    1
  32. You cannot employ Dorchester!!!!!! all around the rank, that thing would never be able to move an inch then with a reasonable velocity or fuel consumption. You can say that 2 parted ammo is good for safety, it probably is but it got a whole other set of disadvantages as well, for example a slow RoF. Iraq, come one, you didn't roll out everyday with your tanks fighting shit in the streets, you had some patrols in peaceful quarters. That was no offensive like the turks do now, instead, you just settled down after a few weeks. I admit that Challengers Armour may be superior, nobody knows, but you are absolutely wrong when you reduce the Leopards advantage only to the price. By the way, that advantage does not really exist, especially for the military, that does not really matter.
    1
  33. Reload is not an issue with modern tanks, on the range, they all score about 6 seconds for a reload. Dorchester at the side cannot be so thick as on the front. That was the point, and in CQC, it does matter were they were attacked. No, that does not mean it. It all depends of the size of the magazine where you store it. Leopard falls slightly short with 42 rounds, which is 16% less. https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Challenger-2-the-best-armoured-tank-in-the-world-surpassing-even-the-Abrams-and-Leopard
    1
  34. Why should they? They are happy with their current Rafale and work on their replacement with FCAS
    1
  35. Robin Moody paranoid much?
    1
  36. It is very expensive to keep them up in the air. Companies stop making spare parts.
    1
  37. That is exactly what is proposed, to use Typhoon to implement early Tempest and FCAS systems to test them and then have a ready system available earlier.
    1
  38.  @1chish  Italy hardly does much for the F35 and France at least has the capability to develop a fighter on their own.
    1
  39. 1chish 1chish Well, they still aren’t a level 1 partner. As for the Rafale, that would surprise me given that France had a history of delta-canard wings. The Rafale has much different aerodynamics compared to the EF. France has an aviation industry that can deliver jets on their own, gotta admit it. When did the Brits built their last true independent jet? Germany is on bord to share R and D costs. They have some stealth experience, building some stealth features into Rafale and developing a stealth drone model.
    1
  40. How is supplying a sovereign country with weapons an act of war? And a launch against the UK would result in an attack on Russia?
    1
  41.  @darius8214  By the same logic, the USSR shouldn’t have supplied the Vietnamese during the Vietnam war? Or the Chinese aided the Koreans during the Korean war? Ehm, yes, the UK will?! That kinda is the point of nukes. Threaten guaranteed destruction if you use your own first.
    1
  42. 1. no, that’s NATO. 2. Germany, Netherlands, Hungary, France, Norway (not in EU), Italy all dispatch forces to the baltics for air policing for example. Likewise with Romania.
    1
  43. You always find those fanboys out there. Imagine the comments below videos about the S400. BTW, I am a civilian too and not a fanboy.
    1
  44. Costs and then the other ships cannot really keep up with a nuclear carrier.
    1
  45.  @tsu8003  How did we treat you bad? We told Britain before the referendum how things would be after.
    1
  46.  Hammer 001  If you think so. I highly doubt New Zealand and Australia could offset loosing unlimited access to the biggest single market right in front of your doorstep. Britain is in no position to tell anyone how anything is going to be in the future. That's why you delayed the Brexit process multiple times and want a transition period.
    1
  47.  Hammer 001  I know. But the Nimitz can run indefinitely on full power whereas the QE has to refuel a lot if it does run full power. And it lacks CATOBAR. By the way, most information about the speeds are classified so I can't really compare the speed. Officially US Navy information for their carriers is 30+ knots.
    1
  48.  Hammer 001  As I say, can't really say something about it because it isn't available to me
    1
  49.  Hammer 001  Name calling is a good way to improve someone's arguments. Nimitz can be supplied offshore, it is done frequently so. And energy is plenty.
    1
  50.  Hammer 001  No ship can really hide in times of satellite reconaissance.
    1