So now you admit you're WRONG and that the US army using the tactic and suddenly you don't damn it as:
Now you say the hull down position: "relies on both defensing and offensive positions, and even uses agressive force"
Before you said:
Which is it ?
Hull down is not an offensive tactic Btw, it is for a tank firing in a
static position; a great amount of resources have been devoted to developing the stabilized gun and being able to shoot accurately on the move
A far too simplistic assessment of armor tactics to be worth discussion
Suffice to say that although tanks will retain their mobility, in defense, they will adopt a static position whether facing a Chinese human wave in Korea or a Soviet mass attack in the Cold War
Please stop pretending you're some expert in the field, from your rather childish posts, I doubt if you've ever been in a tank, let alone served in the military
Saddam's armored forces didn't employ "piss-poor" strategy either. They were simply dominated by vastly superior Western technology.
Please quote any respectable source that agrees with you
What figures do you have for "short supply" ?
Wrong
"In 1982, during the Falklands War, Argentine Super Étendard warplanes carrying the air-launched version of the Exocet sank the destroyer HMS Sheffield...and the merchant ship Atlantic Conveyor. 2 ship-to-ship missiles were removed from the destroyer ARA Seguí, and transferred to an improvised launcher for land use. The missiles were launched on 12 June 1982 and one hit the destroyer HMS Glamorgan."
en.wikipedia.org
Argentina WAS sold the air-to-surface, anti-ship Exocet missiles by France. They jury rigged surface-to-surface missiles, for use from land
Parachute bombs? WTF are they ?
It was the 3rd largest in the world
OK not "massive", but the RN had a lot more hulls than they do today
No, apart from the American colonies, what part of the British empire ever broke away by force ?
The British empire Broke up because that was the way the world was moving post war. What would be the point of trying to keep anywhere that wanted independence, even if Britain had to power to suppress any independence movements
To put it another way, what part of the British empire do you think Britain should have fought to keep ?
So you think cost was the real reason Britain chose to de-colonize ?
You really think that if Britain had the resources of say the USA it would have attempted to keep at least some of the empire ?
What a warped education you received.