Capability

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
#2
#3
Yes, we should be shitting Cambodia’s legions of T55s.
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#4
Which befits a has-been, now largely irrelevant former imperial power still ridden with delusions of glory. Why not be like Portugal (actually the UK's oldest ally)? You don't hear them constantly bemoaning their loss of global influence.

MsG
Because they never had any for a start. If the country is so bad, feel free to leave and head to whatever 3rd world socialist shambles that will take you.
 
#7
I don’t mind bugsy, he’s in Notts, therefore I’m taking one for the team, you cünts owe me.
 
#8
Because they never had any for a start. If the country is so bad, feel free to leave and head to whatever 3rd world socialist shambles that will take you.
Like all socialist advocates - he prefers to suck on the teat of a capitalist state - whilst simultaneously denouncing said state
 
#10
That's only true if you think armour has a significant role in a future strategy. Which might have been true in the cold war when NATO was fairly certain to gain air superiority, which certainly isn't the case now.
Armour most certainly does have a significant part to play in any potential conflicts and that's why the major pwers include and upgrade them. Whether you like it or not.
 
#11
I don’t mind bugsy, he’s in Notts, therefore I’m taking one for the team, you cünts owe me.
Thanks Dingerr, saves me having to do it.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
???

Did the Russians bin all their armour?
Russia has strategic plans for armour - most for taking land - I don't believe we're in the same game!

Tit for tat isn't a strategy. The UK hasn't "binned" all it's armour its reduced it.

We've not found a significant use for massed armour in recent history, air power was the decisive factor in both Gulf conflicts, there are other ways to deter and respond to aggression.
 
#19
Russia has strategic plans for armour - most for taking land - I don't believe we're in the same game!

Tit for tat isn't a strategy. The UK hasn't "binned" all it's armour its reduced it.

We've not found a significant use for massed armour in recent history, air power was the decisive factor in both Gulf conflicts, there are other ways to deter and respond to aggression.

Perhaps you are following the wrong trend, and your thought process is a bit out of date. You need more armour, that has been heavily modernized.

You are a member of NATO, you will be expected to defeat Russian formations.
 
#20
It's not a case of what I like fella, it's what we need and can afford.
But we can afford the huge expense of building, in the UK, two aircraft carriers, numerous euro fighters and F35? Remind me again how aircraft carriers and fighters can hunt and destroy Land based targets (armour or otherwise) in all weathers?
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top