hammerlock

How would they compare in field? which was more reliable? I've heard a lot of things about British engines and design and not all of it is good. so it nice to get the British view of things if possible.

Here's my question, I was wondering how the FV-432 compared to the M-113? Was it better, worst, the same? And I was hoping someone here might have links to detailed information on this and other armoured vehicles. I've searched but all the sights I've come across, lacking in detail. thanks.

I have a follow up question. Would the L7 and L4 ever be used at the time in the same section? and if so how was that set up? was the L4 removed from front-line units quickly or was it a common sight throughout the 80's?

You only need to look at current event to see how a population can be misled into thinking happen when in fact it was just propaganda. Now I know I will take flak for making this point but it so work here. Look at 2002 and 2003 the Bush gov't was pushing WMD's like mad and over 50% of the US population believed this as fact. Of course it wasn't fact, it was propaganda to gain support for invasion of Iraq. Or for that Gulf of Tonkin incident which led to the Vietnam. If its sold right the people will believe anything.

" Would the Germans have accepted a more harsh treaty? Seems unlikely to me. Could the war have been prolonged to gain a more decisive defeat? I don't think the US was prepared to carry the water for the allies at this time. Without the USSR supplying pressure in the East and the lack of mechanized forces, I have a hard time seeing a total defeat of Germany. A longer war maybe only means that WWII starts in 1947 since it takes Germany that much longer to recover." It's not written stone that Germany is going to cause and start WW2. Yes the Germans were bitter about losing, but the cause for WW2 is down to one guy; Mr Hitler. Without Hitler there is no new war. If the US is out of the Great War, it would certainly prolong the war, and prolonging the war would displace the events that lead to Hitler on his path. So a pro-longed Great War would NOT lead to WW2 in 1947, its certainly not inevitable. Even under the harsh terms of 1919 peace treaty Germany was starting to dig it's self out in the late 1920's with the help of aid from the US. The depression hit in 1929 and US money ran out, created a new financial criss in Germany and this allowed Hitler to get support he needed to win the chancellery in 1933. So a prolonged First War would actually be better in the long run.

By any chance do you English links to the above?

well if your talking about Canada gun laws... only thing you need to remember is that Liberal party set up the rules... enough said.

here's my question and hopefully some the more experienced poster can share their insight into this topic. On the whole the M-48/60 doesn't seem to get the credit it deserves. Was the M-48/60 a good tank, or was it a medore design the US was stuck with for lack of a better a design until the M-1 came along.

"I have a funny feeling that long after the last FAL is melted down there will be thousands of M-14s floating around. I personally hated the L1A1 SLR. Loved the Gimpy though." Would be because of the gun cultural in the US or fact that 5.56 isn't powerful enough to get the job done and the US had 1000's of unused and surplus M-14 kicking about, and gun industry ready to make more. The M-14 is a failed service rifle that get a second life as DMR. Where as the FAL was a very successful service rife use din over 70 countries and if Nato had stuck with 7.62 it would still be there. That can't be said for M-14. I like both but as a personal opinion I feel the FAL wins hands down.

"By being able to build modern jet fighters, tanks and other weapon systems, Japan is ensuring that when the call comes, they are not dependent on anyone for arms handout. They can "roll their own" and thus leapfrog any arms embargo or restrictions. Their current weapon building capability far exceeds most other people in Asia - easily matching that of China, India and South Korea." Of course they keep the capability, they get along with with neighbours but their not friends. As it takes more than 60 years to smooth over 100's of years history. Japan believes in peace, but though the theory of be able to fight back, compare that to Canada where the on going theory of the Liberal government has been peace but with capability to really fight back. Which one do think is more effective? Also Keeping the capability and actually building the kits means you have know how to build things and use the hi-tech gained from building fighters or tanks of warships into other industries that make money. And a third reason to keep building your own stuff, if you buy your all stuff from someone else.. really can you be treated you as equal or really speak as a major player in your region? Again look at Canada and the arctic, no one takes our claims serious because we can't enforce them, this allows countries like Denmark and Norway to lay claim to areas that are clearly not theirs. If Japan didn't have strong and locally made defense industry how long to do think it will be before China comes knocking claim some point of Japan is historical theirs. Look at Taiwan when the US pulls up stakes because the China is too important as a trading partner their toast. Whatever Japan's reasons their on the right track.

"I believe he means the beefed-up Mk 48 variant that indeed fires the 7.62 mm. The MG 3 is no longer supported by spare parts produced in Germany. The Bundeswehr is basically using up its stock, but with the gun's ruggedness, it may well take quite a while for it to go away" So is replacing the MG-3 with the MK 48 because its better, or doesn't have the Nazis look? Germany seems to go out its way to look PC.

Here is a second question for your book. Is turkey a part of the EU by your time line. If so, then they would not be going to war both side would have to much too lose.

Question for you. Why would the Turkish 11th Corps North Cyprus: be using the Leopard-1A1A3 Volkan The Leo one is over 30yrs old now and if this is set 20 years in the future won't have something better? Surely they would have Leo 2's or even M1's as Turkey is a Nato member and has good relations with the USA.

So your not talking about the AVDS-1790-2 powerpack then?

NO matter what Bush might say they are the same and not related. Afghanistan was where the terrorist were and was the right choice after 9/11. Iraq was the wrong choice but the war Mr Bush and his friends wanted most of all. Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq and and Saddam had no deals with them, but with the resoucres taken away from afghanistan and the poor running of the war in Iraq, has led the Al-Qaeda to move in.