"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
t...
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
...
(snip)
LOL.... nobody is saying that the Leo's are bad tanks. I haven't heard
one
person say that at all. They are fine tanks. German's are great (if
somewhat
overzealous) engineers. What we are saying, however, is that the Leo's
are
totally unproven in combat, and that all final judgements regarding
any
weapons system is contingent upon actual combat experience. The M1
series
has plenty of combat time under it's belt, and has performed, by all
measures, splendidly. It is a combat proven system and is a better
tank
than
the Leopard. It has better armor, excellent targeting systems, and it
fires
a better round. Period. You need to get over it.
As for it being 'Europe's premere MBT', what do you expect? It is
probably
better than the LeClerc (another parade ground princess), and pigs
will
fly
before the protectionist European governments buy big-ticket items
from
the
USA (and they don't need to; their domestic defense industries are
adequate), but you have to understand that the military just isn't a
priority there in Europe. The military is in fact on the bottom of
their
list. So you cannot expect a nation which takes a 'military-last'
attitude
to produce equipment superior to the USA, which actually may need to
use
the
stuff at some point.
Challenger II?
To most of the EU, buying big-ticket items from the Brits is pretty much
the
same as buying from the USA. Great Britian is not a full EU participant,
and
(smartly) doesn't plan to be anytime soon.
But the Challenger II is another fine, battle-proven piece of hardware.
And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about
and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.
One tank against the entire russian armed forces? Sure, what the
hell....
But seriously, you are just being an idiot now (moreso). The scenario
you
just described is pretty much EXACTLY what the M1 tank was designed
for.
And
you are also assuming that we would not have achieved air superiority
before
sending our armor in; which we would havem being that it is the US
tactical
doctorine to only send in ground forces after the air is secured. And
the
only bigger joke than the Russian army is the Russian air force (well
maybe
it's tied with their navy). We don't fight wars with just tanks.
No takers?... didn't think so since the M-1A2 is confined to
attacking
puny nations with poor import stripped armor of the FSU crewed by
sand-dwelling conscripts.
LOL... 'confined'... whatever you say. And I'm not so sure that the
modern
Russian tank crews are any better trained than the Iraqi's were. Our
armed
forces are a total and complete overmatch for any other armed force on
the
globe. Period. It's not even close.
Yeah, you are certainly doing a good job in Iraq just now.
Yeah, we're losing tank battles left and right over there.
I said 'armed forces' vs. other 'armed forces', which is what the Ghost of
Hitler (aka Robert Arndt) posted as a hypothetical in the first place. USA
vs. Russia. Or anyone else for that matter; there isn't a country in the
world that can match the US military.
The situation in Iraq is an insurgent force, and quite honestly, if we
weren't so damn concerned about politics and 'collateral damage' we could
have the insurgency put down in 12 hours. If you don't belive that, then
you
are a fool. And quite frankly, it's really only been a very short time
anyway.
I don't agree. I suppose I must be a fool. Check your words.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent
in·sur·gent (n-sūrjnt)
adj.
1.. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a
government.
2.. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
There is no established authority in Iraq, nor is there any political
leadership, therefore I would not say 'insurgent' is the right word at all.
'A very short time'? Bwah ha ha ha!
So what would qualify as a long time in your world? Over a year seems likea
long time to me, and I am sure to the people in Iraq. 12 hours? My ass.
But, as I said, as a military, the US armed forces are second to none by a
wide margin. You can make all the snide remarks you like, but it won't
change anything. The envy, however, is palpable.
It just may not quite be the time for this accusation. Unless you want to
provoke laughter that is.
Bogged down in Iraq. Publicly exposed as having tortured POWs. Losing what?
2 soldiers a day, against an enemy which was declared defeated a year ago?
I don't see the grounds for envy there, personally.
John