posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:38 PM
Hum, some of the speculation so far in this thread has been pretty generic, optical cam, DEW etc. But the more interesting stuff (Always worth
reading anyone that quotes Stalin IMO), is more role / mission specific.
Which leads me to ask (not being as well informed as I might be) weren't most 'current' generation MBTs - M1, T-72, Leopard et al - designed to,
either be meeting the Warsaw Pact somewhere in West Germany, or meeting NATO forces somewhere in East Germany?
I may be under-informed, but it seems to me that this particular scenario is no longer quite as likely to be played out. Do MBTs still have a role to
Are the weapons we are using to fight our current conflicts really suitable for them, much of the commentary in this thread seems to suggest
otherwise. Does this mean our governments are still spending money developing weapons systems for conflict scenarios that are unlikely to occur?
Short of invading mainland China are we going to be using the doctrines and equipment from the Cold War, or are we (should we) be looking forward to
possible future conflict scenarios - limited intensity / objective engagements, policing actions, 'peacekeeping' and regime stabilisation? And how
does heavy armour fit into these scenarios if it does at all?
Oh for my 2 pennyworth to the OP, better, clearer information communication. Voice comms radio is a 19th century technology coordinating 21st