Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fire2burn)
    What a load of nationalistic nonsense. China has a numerical advantage of 20:1 against the UK forces, and it isn't just equipped with RPG's it has a veritable host of antitank weaponry. The UK forces would probably run out of rations and bullets before the end of day one anyway knowing the incompetence of the government.
    Unless they have some new weaponary I dont know about they still have nothing that can take out a challenger tank on a consistant basis.
    The only thing that can is maybe an Abrams or one of the new european ones, but info like that is classified and untested.

    1000 men vs 1 tank that cant be taken out = alot of dead men.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vokes)
    Unless they have some new weaponary I dont know about they still have nothing that can take out a challenger tank on a consistant basis.
    The only thing that can is maybe an Abrams or one of the new european ones, but info like that is classified and untested.

    1000 men vs 1 tank that cant be taken out = alot of dead men.

    Who says the tanks cannot be taken out?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vokes)
    Unless they have some new weaponary I dont know about they still have nothing that can take out a challenger tank on a consistant basis.
    The only thing that can is maybe an Abrams or one of the new european ones, but info like that is classified and untested.

    1000 men vs 1 tank that cant be taken out = alot of dead men.
    A tank - even a Challenger II - isn't invulnerable.

    I watched a Police, Camera, Action once where a man went crazy, stole a tank and went on a rampage through an American town, crushing cars and smashing down lampposts like toothpicks.

    He got stuck on a central reservation and the police swarmed the tank, breaking in with angle-grinders and shooting him dead.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GazzyG)
    A tank - even a Challenger II - isn't invulnerable.

    I watched a Police, Camera, Action once where a man went crazy, stole a tank and went on a rampage through an American town, crushing cars and smashing down lampposts like toothpicks.

    He got stuck on a central reservation and the police swarmed the tank, breaking in with angle-grinders and shooting him dead.
    Hehe, that was where I live.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vokes)
    Unless they have some new weaponary I dont know about they still have nothing that can take out a challenger tank on a consistant basis.
    The only thing that can is maybe an Abrams or one of the new european ones, but info like that is classified and untested.

    1000 men vs 1 tank that cant be taken out = alot of dead men.
    "Unless they have some new weaponry that you don't know about?" They have tonnes of new equipment that you, I, and Joe public doesn't know about. There is no purpose served if a military announces to the world every single time it's procured a new weapon, the Chinese are the masters when it comes to reverse engineering military hardware and adding their own touches. I'd be utterly dumb founded if they hadn't found a way to penetrate the Challenger 2's armour seeing as its over 10 years old now.

    China would still win hands down, losses matter not when you out number your enemy 20:1. It'd be a war of attrition something the Chinese have plenty of fodder for, plus they have millions of others they could conscript at a moments notice. The British historically also have problems with funding for the military we simply don't have the financial muscle to be able to afford a war with the Chinese.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, so the Chinese military don't have a clone of nearly every single Western weapon produced in the last 50 years?

    I know their submarines aren't much cop, but beyond that...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJeebs)
    Oh, so the Chinese military don't have a clone of nearly every single Western weapon produced in the last 50 years?

    I know their submarines aren't much cop, but beyond that...
    Do they still use all the old diesel subs the Russians don't want anymore?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GazzyG)
    Do they still use all the old diesel subs the Russians don't want anymore?
    Yeah, pretty much. I think they have their only nuclear programme, but it's unreliable at best.

    From what i recall, Chinese Navy is basically Russian hand me downs. Which in some respects is no bad thing.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Put it this way - anti-tank weaponry develops a lot faster than nations can design a new tank. Ten years is a long time. The russians have had at missiles that would drop a chally for a good long time, I'd be seriously surprised if the chinese didn't.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Bateman you have to remember a lot of US overseas bases are joint operations and/or located on foreign soil (with local government permission). To be honest our militaries are so interlinked I'm not sure what would happen.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ewan)
    Bateman you have to remember a lot of US overseas bases are joint operations and/or located on foreign soil (with local government permission). To be honest our militaries are so interlinked I'm not sure what would happen.

    so you're saying that if the UK or the US declared war on each other, America would leave their bases in the UK?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJeebs)
    Yeah, pretty much. I think they have their only nuclear programme, but it's unreliable at best.

    From what i recall, Chinese Navy is basically Russian hand me downs. Which in some respects is no bad thing.

    Well you recall wrong. The chinese Navy is much better than the Royal one.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bateman)
    so you're saying that if the UK or the US declared war on each other, America would leave their bases in the UK?
    I'm saying their known targets by in large and would be attacked immediately by local forces. I'm not really sure how it would work, since this would never happen, but things would get messy, especially in bases which are jointly operated by the US/UK.

    You are correct that the US does have many bases around the world. However these are located for strategic defence against US enemies not supposed allies (UK for example), and are in place by permission. They don't have the means to defend against a native invasion.

    The infrastructure would need to be redesigned.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Misogynist)
    They kill each other and until one country has no more troops left.
    US + UK cannot kill off the Taliban, with air and naval support included.

    How do you expect one of them to be able to kill the other, assuming both sides are stronger then the Taliban.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vokes)
    Unless they have some new weaponary I dont know about they still have nothing that can take out a challenger tank on a consistant basis.
    The only thing that can is maybe an Abrams or one of the new european ones, but info like that is classified and untested.

    1000 men vs 1 tank that cant be taken out = alot of dead men.
    The Javelin anti-tank missile would do a lot of damage. But like you say it is untested so who knows? But Javelin's are pretty powerful, search on YouTube for "Javelin - T-72". If anything, it would damage the optics on a challenger 2, as they aren't exactly plated with secret armour.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The UK would. We have better trained troops in general, even with the sometimes mediocre equipment that is supplied to forces. It does the job. That, and British troops are less reliant on backup and support, and overly more professional.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samba)
    US + UK cannot kill off the Taliban, with air and naval support included.

    How do you expect one of them to be able to kill the other, assuming both sides are stronger then the Taliban.

    There is a massive difference between conventional and assymetrical warfare.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    The UK would. We have better trained troops in general, even with the sometimes mediocre equipment that is supplied to forces. It does the job. That, and British troops are less reliant on backup and support, and overly more professional.

    What makes you say that?

    Normal American soldiers are better trained than normal british ones and lets not forget the US marines who are better trained than normal american soldiers. There are over 200k of them.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ewan)
    I'm saying their known targets by in large and would be attacked immediately by local forces. I'm not really sure how it would work, since this would never happen, but things would get messy, especially in bases which are jointly operated by the US/UK.

    You are correct that the US does have many bases around the world. However these are located for strategic defence against US enemies not supposed allies (UK for example), and are in place by permission. They don't have the means to defend against a native invasion.

    The infrastructure would need to be redesigned.

    I am sure they have already thought about that and planned for it.

    If America is going to attack the UK, it would use its base in the UK as well as near by bases like the one in Germany which houses 50,000 soldiers. So your argument doesn't work.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bateman)
    What makes you say that?

    Normal American soldiers are better trained than normal british ones and lets not forget the US marines who are better trained than normal american soldiers. There are over 200k of them.
    That's not true. There are generally higher standards in British forces. They have to cope with smaller numbers and improvise, and generally aren't as reliant on air support.
    The US army generally has a different strategy and tactics. It doesn't have as much of a focus on individual soldier training. What's the point in that, when they can use larger numbers combined with air power and all sorts of technology?
    US troops are generally very well-trained to handle alot of situations and better than many nations, but the average US squad comes second to a British one, in terms of technique and mindset.

    The US is more capable of fighting a large-scale war than the UK, but in terms of infantry vs infantry, British troops are more likely to win.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,632

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.