That's because I'm better than him.
European military power with no American support - AKA the tank counting thread
- Thread starter Red in STL
- Start date
Unfortunately Grib is a fool and Sir Percy Hobart here has already taken him to task over his foolish foolishness in this very thread, equating his thoughts to people who claim vaccines cause autism.
Isn't this just slating humvees?
I mean more that you would find some middle ground where a light tank retains the stopping power of a modern MBT without too much of a trade off but is cheaper/smaller.
It's just an article on the potential evolution of light cavalry it wasn't directly related to your question.
As for your point no, what you are suggesting isn't an alternative but a compliment to MBTs and we already have them it's the bulk of armored fighting vehicles, as an example the Bradley Fighting vehicles or in France you have wheeled vehicles like the Jaguar.
Civ 6 is actually pretty good, I don't take much notice of the graphics
Civ 7 is hard to describe, the gameplay is very different, I haven't played enouh yet to make a fair comparison to the older games
It's fair to say reactions have been mixed, some like it and some hate it, there's loads of YouTube videos on it - it certainly is different!
All the way back to the Spectrum and proud of it, I'm not hadcore though, I only really play strategy type games, games back in the day were mostly based on gameplay, these days it's mostly about graphics
I thought Civ 5 was close to being perfect as a turn-based strategy game. Really don't feel like learning a new one.
Then Civ 7 isn't for you, it's is very different to any of the earlier versions
@tomaldinho1
What you are suggesting could be true for the Navy though, with better drones the need for ever larger aircraft carriers seems less crucial. I also think that I have seen something about a larger focus on compact submarines.
What you are suggesting could be true for the Navy though, with better drones the need for ever larger aircraft carriers seems less crucial. I also think that I have seen something about a larger focus on compact submarines.
Civ 6 can get boring pretty fast, once you get the hang of it it's text book moves all the way. Grab this, research that, ownage.
At the end the only thing fun is trying 1 city gsme with Gandhi for me, even that becomes too archaic to enjoy
That bottom is just a tank with a peashooter of a gun.It's just an article on the potential evolution of light cavalry it wasn't directly related to your question.
As for your point no, what you are suggesting isn't an alternative but a compliment to MBTs and we already have them it's the bulk of armored fighting vehicles, as an example the Bradley Fighting vehicles or in France you have wheeled vehicles like the Jaguar.
It's just an article on the potential evolution of light cavalry it wasn't directly related to your question.
As for your point no, what you are suggesting isn't an alternative but a compliment to MBTs and we already have them it's the bulk of armored fighting vehicles, as an example the Bradley Fighting vehicles or in France you have wheeled vehicles like the Jaguar.
This isn't quite accurate. Refer to my previous post on difference between IFV/AFV and Tanks/Assault guns.
The purpose of IFV's is moderate firepower with provided survivability on the frontline. The purpose of a Tank is specifically for direct fire support.
Light tanks' main role is also direct fire support in more austere terrain, but they're not directly responsible for providing survivability for infantry regiments/battalions like an IFV is.
So IFV is a Bradley
MBT is an Abrams
Light Tank is an M10 Booker.
M10 Booker's can't really ferry or carry people, like an IFV can. They have similar firepower to an MBT but lack specific modules in order to lower the weight.
Another example of a Light Tank is an AMX-10RC. Yes, the French classify it as an AFV but it's very different to those kind of roles as AMX's cannot ferry troops.
M10 Booker.
Still a massive vehicle, but designed for more austere terrain and more easily deployable than an M1A2 Sepv3 Abrams
There's an article on the BBC about carriers, albeit the American super carriers but still relevant
For sure. I was just trying to address the posters reasoning that, since there was no chance of the UK being invaded it was hard to justify higher defence spending.
Carriers are very much still necessary. As long as Air power is relevant, carriers are relevant.
Uber-Long Range fighter/bombers that can negate the need for floating airfields across oceans simply will not exist for half this century.
Uber-Long Range fighter/bombers that can negate the need for floating airfields across oceans simply will not exist for half this century.
Thank you
How does any of that contradict the post? The initial post suggested very mobile off road vehicles with decent armour and LMG.
The post here seems to imply that his suggestion of light tanks is fulfilled by IFV's
They are very different roles. IFV's primary focus is to ensure soldiers don't die from fires on the frontline. An IFV has a backdoor that allows 6 soldiers to seek cover inside. A light tank, which is what the original poster was suggesting, is designed for direct fire support.
IFV's primary focus is not direct fire support.
The likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has suggested that Germany should form a partnership with France regarding nuclear weapons.
When France and Germany partner up you know European unity has never been stronger.
I could be wrong but that's what I responded to and I interpret it as a BFV.
I wouldn't want to be the guy who informs state leaders that we've run out of tanks. It's a tankless job.
The first part is more important to me:
"very mobile artillery with the ability to absord frontal damage. 1 or 2 man, highly manoeuverable off road vehicles with a decent anti armour gun and LMG" is far more indicative of a light tank than it is of an IFV.
Well if it's more important to you.
I don't understand this constant confrontational answers to be honest. Specially is odd because you are an excellent poster. @AfonsoAlves might answer patronizingly but after been told he tone it down.
Okay.
More like a light tank, but I wonder if they can make them even smaller than what we have now without losing too much power. Almost like you have MBT standard frontal armour, light tank for the rest but ensure its main gun is more than capable of taking out an MBT. Basically a field gun on wheels, with some additional fire support.
M10 booker
It kind of scrambles my brain, that would be a downgraded MBT or an upgraded light tank?
Just stumbled across this thread. Surely Europe is qscrewed without US support, right??
It seems embarrassing that Europe has consistently underspent on defence and relied on US via article 5. Although I’ve recently heard that this was done on purpose so that no single European country could amass a huge army, like Germany did in the previous world wars.
If the Trump administration are saying they won’t guarantee European security, and that we now need to build bigger militaries, surely they need to give Europe time to do this?
Where does the money come from to do this, we’re currently spending just over 2% of gdp on defence. We’ve mentioned raising this to 2.5%, but haven’t committed. From what analysts are saying we need to spend above 3%, more like Poland.
Worrying times!
It seems embarrassing that Europe has consistently underspent on defence and relied on US via article 5. Although I’ve recently heard that this was done on purpose so that no single European country could amass a huge army, like Germany did in the previous world wars.
If the Trump administration are saying they won’t guarantee European security, and that we now need to build bigger militaries, surely they need to give Europe time to do this?
Where does the money come from to do this, we’re currently spending just over 2% of gdp on defence. We’ve mentioned raising this to 2.5%, but haven’t committed. From what analysts are saying we need to spend above 3%, more like Poland.
Worrying times!
Why would Europe be screwed without US support? Support against whom? And how has Europe relied on the US via article 5 when only one country has ever invoked it and it's not a European one?
Yet only the US has ever invoked Article 5 and NATO responded, now the US is suggesting that if it's invoked by a European country they might not respond
Europe is now coming to the conclusion that the US may not be the allies they thought, if that means they have to start spending gianormous amounts on defence then that's what they will have to do, they don't really have a choice
And as I alluded to if you think about it, the reason they may need to spend these amounts on defence would be to defend themselves against the US. Which isn't a great situation but not a bad idea. At the end of day De Gaulle was right.
Any thoughts on it? Quick google tells me 40 tonnes, a decent bit lighter than an M1 abrams. I was thinking more like if someone took the good ideas from a Sheridan but with modern armour and relibaility. Think they were like 20t but had al kinds of issues in Nam.
a new class I have created, the average tank, the james milner of the tank world
That's why I assumed that you were thinking about light cavalry and that's why I mentioned the Jaguar who is replacing the AMX 10RC and Panhard ERC for France. A Jaguar is 20t to 25t.