http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-co-operation-between-Britain-and-France.html :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
Britain-France military co-operation
- Thread starter robbied196
- Start date
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
As if it weren't stupid enough when the yanks controlled our nukes...
Spleen
Banned?
Does that mean we have to surrender next time war threatens our country?
Never heard a french military joke before?
Never heard a french military joke before?
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
This is bad, very bad.
Britain + France = Canada
Our navy consists of a guy sitting in a canoe with a shotgun. Not the kind of country you want to take after military-wise. :nono:
Britain + France = Canada
Our navy consists of a guy sitting in a canoe with a shotgun. Not the kind of country you want to take after military-wise. :nono:
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
You can joke about the French miltary because internet guys who don't know shit about it call the French cheese eating surrender monkeys bcause they were wise enough NOT to invade Iraq all you want - but Britain produced the Jaguar with them, their Mirage 3s flew rings around F4s, MiGs and various other jets in the mid-east, they've gotten behind an F22 in WVR training, Their rafaelle had the most advanced cockpit of any jet flying and may still have (I'm not as up to date on aviation as I used to be) AND has already been adapted to carrier ops.
They still have military service which means they CAN call up their populace if necessary.
They have a light, mobile powerfull MBT (Leclerc which beats M1 abrams into a cocked hat and that I would prefer over Britain's 70 ton Challenger 2)
When you look at French military history you see that Napolean nearly conquered Europe (who stopped him? Who else; the Russians), that their AMX30 was formidable in operation Daguet (as opposed to M1, which suffered more losses to Saddams tanks, approx 70% of which wouldn't start due to sand filter problems and that, generally, just sucks), that Dassault has produced some top quality fighters.
Look further back and you'll see that the French took parts of Africa under their control. It's ironic that the americans should tease the French so; without French assistance breaking free of the tyranny of the British crown would've been harder and maybe not even possible.
Canada more resembles the usa than any of those two countries according to my mind.
You use your C16 rifles, you use hornets (no rough landing gear, short legs, 7.5G limit and an airframe that has never been satisfactory)
Aircraft carriers? Bad idea. Sharing them? Worse! The effectiveness of ABM technology is very much in doubt - why do you think Obama cancelled the "missile shield"?
Just because an anti-terror method is old, doesn't mean it's bad. Do you really think you can track a guy and his contacts by satellite when he doesn't use a mobile and enters a multistory structure containing 100s of people to meet his contact?
And it only took about 800 years! 
roronoa3000
Banned
*snicker*
Spleen
Banned?
Not invading Iraq wouldn't count as surrendering though. The Battle of France, however...
It's Napoleon who must laugh in the Pantheon, "finally i did it, i knew Waterloo was a detail". Recession makes some unusual things comes true.Bonaparte Dreamed about it & Sarkozy as a "beholder" of his legacy makes it.
I don't believe we ever controlled your Trident missiles or RAF nuclear bombs.
Our nukes at RAF bases were under US Presidential command.
I'm sorry what was that about the Leclerc vs. the M1a2? Leclerc has yet to fire at another tank in combat.
The M1A2 has been blasting Soviet/Chinese/Russian tanks since 1991.
Stop whining about the F/A-18. It's a better multi purpose aircraft than most out there and once again it's been proven in combat.
Besides Canada is most likely going with the F-35 as a replacement.
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
That was more of a Canadian history joke than a military joke. Of course our miltary resembles that of the States. Only I like to think, pound-for-pound, our military is a tab better.
And I don't understand the French jokes either. I got in an argument with Philbert over this very subject. You know, despite the fact France sacrificed a lot to defeat the Germans in World War I, they have never won a war.
For once we agree on something. The CF-18 is a damn fine aircraft. Might not be the best out there, but they manage to make the Russians turn around when they come into our airspace and that's what matters. :glugglug:
Supafly
Retired Mod
I think that move of Britain and France is rather smart, and saves a lot of money, which can be way better used in other parts of the budget.
Not like the USm who keep on over-building a behemoth of a military with money they do not actually have and in consequence making their spending situation a nightmare.
But never mind, keep it up and let China buy up the rest of you. See how that works out in the future.
Not like the USm who keep on over-building a behemoth of a military with money they do not actually have and in consequence making their spending situation a nightmare.
But never mind, keep it up and let China buy up the rest of you. See how that works out in the future.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Oh my, I'm gonna hafta do a mammoth (tank? HA!) post here...
I'm ashamed of my country.
Leclerc has yet to see combat, but it is lighter and therefore more mobile, whereas M1 is a 70 ton behemoth (wanna see what happens when light tanks meet heavy tanks? Look at the blitzkrieg when German Pnazers laid waste to French Char B1s, then look at the end of WW2 when 70 ton (70 ton tank? Good job nobody ever repeated THAT mistake) tigers spent most of their time as broken down mobility kills only to be outflanked, outmaneuvered and destroyed by lighter, mobile tanks.
Not forgetting that using a 70 ton monstrosity like an M1 can ruin an operation - just look at the Iraqi operation where an M1 fell THROUGH a bridge, stranding the first 5 vehicles of the column on the opposite side and forcing the rest (approx 130 vehicles) to find another way around.
M1s lack of mobility (it self-entrenches in anything but tank country) makes it perfect ambush fodder - unless you thought they were called roadside bombs because they were planted in fields in the middle of nowhere?
Why is M1 so heavy? Because of depleted uranium armour. is it any good? No, because it has a low melting temperature and because depleted uranium without the right element mixed in is about as soft as LEAD.
Does it leave a radioactive mess behind when destroyed? Yes! Is this denied? Yes! Why? Because an american company makes a hell of a lot of money disposing of the radioactive mess of destroyed M1s.
Contrast this to Leclercs modular armour which can be upgraded to suit whatever weapons a foe may have and upgraded when it becomes outdated.
But hey, at least crew protection is good, right? Well, no - M1 has no bottom escape hatch (tank crew on top of a tank are just what a sniper prays for) and that blast compartment was designed to contain the explosion of the old 105MM rounds. M1 now uses 120MM rounds and if they go, the whole turret goes.
Leclerc has a real tank engine rather than a jet engine monstrosity (ok, Turbine, but same basic principle) which produces 1500 degree exhaust, which is a dead giveaway to anybody (everybody these days) with a thermal sight, a curse for working with infantry and likely to set parched scrubland ON FIRE (good job that the M1 doesn't want to operate in the mid-east then, eh?.
But then again, it's not easy for M1 to work with infantry anyways because only those M1s with TUSK have an infantry telephone - and just watch and see how quickly THAT will dissapear after M1 withdraws from the mideast.
FACT: A Leo2 with half the fuel of an M1 can travel the same distance and idle 48 hours. An M1 will exhaust a full tank of fuel in 8 hours when Idling. Can you shut an M1 engine down? Yes. But how long does it take to restart? 90 SECONDS! How long for a real tank engine? 5 seconds.
Leclerc has some rather impressive self defense systems, a longer barrel than M1 allowing for increased accuracy and excellent shot power.
Talking of firepower; French utilise a rather impressive array of armament types, americans cannot because the armament company maintains an (ILLEGAL!) monopoly on munitions and supplies VERY expensive munitions to M1 crews which don't work well.
For example, the depleted Uranium Sabot of the M1? No better than non-radioactive Russian Sabot rounds.
M1 has no landline jack - it's communications are therefore unreliable due to weather, easy to intercept and jam by the enemy and, here's the best bit:
M60 HAD BETTER THERMAL SIGHTS THAN THE M1 THAT REPLACED IT!
So how did M1 manage to do all that damage to Iraqi tanks? Well, Saddam was a retard when it came to military matters and rather than use his tanks as a mobile fighting force as they wer emeant to be used (the phrase "mobility kill" exists for a reason) he dug his tanks into the sand as nic, stationary bunkers, just waiting for the usaf or a limping M1 to come along and turn them into scrap metal. I say that, but of course, many of these were OLD T55 and T72 tanks; designed YEARS ago, monkey models to boot; they were already scrap metal.
Didn't stop them from pwning 14 M1s tho. :yesyes:
Here endeth the lesson on M1.
So, F18, I'll do this the short way and go into detail only if you ask nicely:
The original YF17 was rejected by the USAF in favour of the F16.
Now the Navy wanted something to do exactly what F16 did, but their little-dick-compensation pride led to them not wanting to share jets with the air force (but of course, use the face-saving excuse that you want the reliability of 2 engines).
So YF17 became F18. But the Navy wasn't satisfied; it was short on legs.
So F18 became F18E (super Hornet). Not really related. So what what happens to the old F18s? They get replaced with a single engine (WAIT! ISN'T THERE AN UNEDIABLE NECESSITY OF 2 ENGINES! WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT?!) F35 which is supposed to be basically a neo F16.
So this new F18, what's it like? Well, it's a lot like an F15.
So, to recap: The original F18 (YF17) wasn't good enough.
Then there was the F18 (F18C) Which wasn't good enough.
And finally there's the super hornet. Which you might as well just have replaced with a navalised F15 for a fraction of the cost.
So what about the F35 Canada will get? I'll only tell you about THAT if you ask nicely.
Here endeth the military rant
You operate Leo2 - your military is a shedload better right there.
Interesting, they never won a war, yet they were the enemy of the worlds very first superpower (and a giant pain in the arse for her) and they held down territories all over the world. You have to be doing SOMETHING right militarily in order to manage that.
The F18 is, frankly, not the best of the bunch. I'm not saying it's useless, just that you could do better. A lot better.
As for us military spending; very little of that actually goes any way to providing the troops with good military gear; why else do you think they managed to spend twice as much as EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD PUT TOGETHER and STILL not manage to issue their troops body armour, something most other 1st world countries manage to do?
Which battle of France?
Sarkozy the first eh? At least you French have the guts to stand up to your "emporor" We Brits don't
I'm ashamed of my country.British nuclear missiles were reliant on american satellite systems for targetting info. While we operated the Vulcan (WHY THE HELL DID WE EVER STOP DOING THAT?!) we could use nuclear bombs independantly, but required the Vulcan to penetrate enemy airspace in order to do so, however we had to get permission from the yanks (AKA "can we have satellite targetting information for X?" before we could launch much more effective nuclear missiles. Such permission would doubtless have been denied us even if we were under attack.
Leclerc has yet to see combat, but it is lighter and therefore more mobile, whereas M1 is a 70 ton behemoth (wanna see what happens when light tanks meet heavy tanks? Look at the blitzkrieg when German Pnazers laid waste to French Char B1s, then look at the end of WW2 when 70 ton (70 ton tank? Good job nobody ever repeated THAT mistake) tigers spent most of their time as broken down mobility kills only to be outflanked, outmaneuvered and destroyed by lighter, mobile tanks.
Not forgetting that using a 70 ton monstrosity like an M1 can ruin an operation - just look at the Iraqi operation where an M1 fell THROUGH a bridge, stranding the first 5 vehicles of the column on the opposite side and forcing the rest (approx 130 vehicles) to find another way around.
M1s lack of mobility (it self-entrenches in anything but tank country) makes it perfect ambush fodder - unless you thought they were called roadside bombs because they were planted in fields in the middle of nowhere?
Why is M1 so heavy? Because of depleted uranium armour. is it any good? No, because it has a low melting temperature and because depleted uranium without the right element mixed in is about as soft as LEAD.
Does it leave a radioactive mess behind when destroyed? Yes! Is this denied? Yes! Why? Because an american company makes a hell of a lot of money disposing of the radioactive mess of destroyed M1s.
Contrast this to Leclercs modular armour which can be upgraded to suit whatever weapons a foe may have and upgraded when it becomes outdated.
But hey, at least crew protection is good, right? Well, no - M1 has no bottom escape hatch (tank crew on top of a tank are just what a sniper prays for) and that blast compartment was designed to contain the explosion of the old 105MM rounds. M1 now uses 120MM rounds and if they go, the whole turret goes.
Leclerc has a real tank engine rather than a jet engine monstrosity (ok, Turbine, but same basic principle) which produces 1500 degree exhaust, which is a dead giveaway to anybody (everybody these days) with a thermal sight, a curse for working with infantry and likely to set parched scrubland ON FIRE (good job that the M1 doesn't want to operate in the mid-east then, eh?
.But then again, it's not easy for M1 to work with infantry anyways because only those M1s with TUSK have an infantry telephone - and just watch and see how quickly THAT will dissapear after M1 withdraws from the mideast.
FACT: A Leo2 with half the fuel of an M1 can travel the same distance and idle 48 hours. An M1 will exhaust a full tank of fuel in 8 hours when Idling. Can you shut an M1 engine down? Yes. But how long does it take to restart? 90 SECONDS! How long for a real tank engine? 5 seconds.
Leclerc has some rather impressive self defense systems, a longer barrel than M1 allowing for increased accuracy and excellent shot power.
Talking of firepower; French utilise a rather impressive array of armament types, americans cannot because the armament company maintains an (ILLEGAL!) monopoly on munitions and supplies VERY expensive munitions to M1 crews which don't work well.
For example, the depleted Uranium Sabot of the M1? No better than non-radioactive Russian Sabot rounds.
M1 has no landline jack - it's communications are therefore unreliable due to weather, easy to intercept and jam by the enemy and, here's the best bit:
M60 HAD BETTER THERMAL SIGHTS THAN THE M1 THAT REPLACED IT!
So how did M1 manage to do all that damage to Iraqi tanks? Well, Saddam was a retard when it came to military matters and rather than use his tanks as a mobile fighting force as they wer emeant to be used (the phrase "mobility kill" exists for a reason) he dug his tanks into the sand as nic, stationary bunkers, just waiting for the usaf or a limping M1 to come along and turn them into scrap metal. I say that, but of course, many of these were OLD T55 and T72 tanks; designed YEARS ago, monkey models to boot; they were already scrap metal.
Didn't stop them from pwning 14 M1s tho. :yesyes:
Here endeth the lesson on M1.
So, F18, I'll do this the short way and go into detail only if you ask nicely:
The original YF17 was rejected by the USAF in favour of the F16.
Now the Navy wanted something to do exactly what F16 did, but their little-dick-compensation pride led to them not wanting to share jets with the air force (but of course, use the face-saving excuse that you want the reliability of 2 engines).
So YF17 became F18. But the Navy wasn't satisfied; it was short on legs.
So F18 became F18E (super Hornet). Not really related. So what what happens to the old F18s? They get replaced with a single engine (WAIT! ISN'T THERE AN UNEDIABLE NECESSITY OF 2 ENGINES! WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT?!) F35 which is supposed to be basically a neo F16.
So this new F18, what's it like? Well, it's a lot like an F15.
So, to recap: The original F18 (YF17) wasn't good enough.
Then there was the F18 (F18C) Which wasn't good enough.
And finally there's the super hornet. Which you might as well just have replaced with a navalised F15 for a fraction of the cost.
So what about the F35 Canada will get? I'll only tell you about THAT if you ask nicely.
Here endeth the military rant
Sorry, didn't quite get the joke - sense of humour failure.That was more of a Canadian history joke than a military joke. Of course our miltary resembles that of the States. Only I like to think, pound-for-pound, our military is a tab better.
And I don't understand the French jokes either. I got in an argument with Philbert over this very subject. You know, despite the fact France sacrificed a lot to defeat the Germans in World War I, they have never won a war.
For once we agree on something. The CF-18 is a damn fine aircraft. Might not be the best out there, but they manage to make the Russians turn around when they come into our airspace and that's what matters. :glugglug:
You operate Leo2 - your military is a shedload better right there.
Interesting, they never won a war, yet they were the enemy of the worlds very first superpower (and a giant pain in the arse for her) and they held down territories all over the world. You have to be doing SOMETHING right militarily in order to manage that.
The F18 is, frankly, not the best of the bunch. I'm not saying it's useless, just that you could do better. A lot better.
Power is not meant to be shared. I foresee big problems with this.
As for us military spending; very little of that actually goes any way to providing the troops with good military gear; why else do you think they managed to spend twice as much as EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD PUT TOGETHER and STILL not manage to issue their troops body armour, something most other 1st world countries manage to do?
Spleen
Banned?
France may have been in many battles, but there is only one "Battle of France".
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Well, if you tell me WHICH one I have a vastly improved chance of providing informed commentary on it.
Spleen
Banned?
Dude, did you read it? There is only one battle of france that is called THE BATTLE OF FRANCE.
THE BATTLE OF FRANCE
Similar threads
