(Original post by DH-Biker)
Ahh, but Armour still represents the strongest form of ground warfare, whilst its weak against airborne attack or even an infantryman with an anti-armour weapon, a main battle tank still poses a potent tactical tool. In the almost certain event of a Third World War, Tanks will once again come into their own. Most armour in Europe and America today was designed for wars in central Europe between the Russians and Americans, and whoever else sided with which nation. It is still advanced upon, however, and we haven't seen the end of the tank yet, nor much of the armoured vehicles we utilise on the modern battlefield today. They just haven't had a chance to fully come into their own yet, all they've really had a chance to attack are the Taliban in caves, mountains or buildings with RPGs, they aren't really designed for that purpose, they are dedicated hunters of other armour and for putting rounds through buildings and fortifications, little else.
My Brother is in the AAC and he's told me before about how effective modern military helicopters are at taking on armour. As you say, an AH-64 can hover behind a treeline ten miles away from several tanks and fire missiles that will guide to each one, and all it takes is several seconds above the trees to fire. It doesn't limit Armour's effectiveness, though, and a tank will still hold an impressive shock factor for any infantry around. Not to mention they are extremely effective at holding an area, even more so if the crews and / or engineers have had time to erect defenses for them such as firing pens, etc.
406? Ahh, apologies, last time I saw a source the number of Leclercs was nearly twice as many as that. If my source was incorrect, I stand corrected. Still, the point still has an air of truth; whilst the Challenger is again one of if not the greatest MBT on the planet, if it runs into a squadron of Leclercs it stands little chance, even with its impressive main gun and target acquisition systems. Its Choblam Armour is perhaps the greatest combat protection yet concieved and stories are in circulation of it sustaining nigh on a hundred RPG-7 projectiles and still protecting the crew inside, but it does have weaknesses and concentrated fire will knock holes through it.
I would disagree with your last point, however. I would wager Germany would now be able to take us quite efficiently, though I do agree France would have a harder time. I think Germany would quite easily have us on the ropes, though. Against larger forces such as the Russians, we'd be overrun within hours, there is no way we can match their logisistics. They can land tanks and infantry here by the hundreds and thousands respectively very efficiently with their Antanov A-225 aircraft. They can easily begin mass production of those and given each one has a cargo capacity of over 48,000sqft, you think how many infantry they could pack into that and how quickly they could deploy them.
Still, this thread is about Argentina and the point still stands that we wouldn't have to resort to nuclear arms to defeat them, we could easily achieve it with convnetional means and a tactical strike would be the absolute final option if all else failed.