Europa increases military spending

At first: No. Germany will start building up their tank fleet again, tbf. 300 Leopards is kinda pathetic for the fourth largest economy in the world. I'm not quite sure how Germany can have 2 Panzerdivisions with just 300MBTs though. Yes they have Schützenpanzer as well but just 150 Kampfpanzer (MBTs) per Division is pretty low from my unprofessional point of view.
Additionally, Europe in the last decades hasn't been very good at innovating shit ngl. So they'll mostly focus on getting their desolate militaries back into shape before trying to cook up sci-fi shit.

>europe
>crazy technological advancements
Are you retarded?

>sharp rock
"Nothin' personal kid."

Attached: 1647272399168.png (362x296, 63.38K)

Dumb question, but why the fuck do you need tanks if you can just missile the shit out of them?
Unless you plan to invade it's kinda pointless to have them no?
Also Germany isn't exactly a EU border country so they got a whole Eastern pleb buffer zone.

what's going on with his chin, would having one be detrimental to performance?

we invented technology, nigger

>Dumb question, but why the fuck do you need tanks if you can just missile the shit out of them?
It is in fact not that easy to destroy a tank with missiles. Simply said, if you hit the Hull frontally or the turret it will never go through. Sides have reactive armor so you need some awfully advanced and expensive missiles to have a shot at that. Western missiles like the javelin for this reason try to strike from above, but each one of these missiles costs 100-200k dollars each. Tank ammunition is far, far cheaper because it is far, far simpler (still not cheap but no comparison). javelins should be used in less than 2km range while can theoretically work in up to 4km. A Leopard 2 can easily engage other tanks at 5/6km, has an effective range of 12km and could shoot from up to 20km away. Not to mention that modern MBTs also have anti-rocket systems that can partially block or confuse incoming rockets. Now obviously Russia's tank fleet doesn't entirely consist of top of the line modern MBTs (neither does Ukraine's) and if you bring tanks to suburban or urban battle zones then there's more than enough cover for the infantry to get into range of the MBTs, but because of that MBTs shouldn't be used in urban combat during a war as they are way to valuable to risk there. Of course there are always exceptions but tanks are from a military perspective way more valuable than soldiers.
So in the open fields or forests which is still a large part of the world tanks are the king of the battlefield (as long as the enemy doesn't have air supremacy).
>Unless you plan to invade it's kinda pointless to have them no?
Offensive capability and mobility are the most important factors. If you lack that you'll get the same experience as france in 1940. If your troops cannot mount a counterattack your enemy does not need to cover his flank. That's why every modern army is fully motorized. Ukraine's army is motorized, and they're doing the fighting not the civilians.

I doubt but if they come they will come from France, nothing from the cucked Jewrmany

Lmao

Attached: 1645047942903.jpg (1280x720, 207.08K)

Thanks for the explanation. I wouldn't have thought of it this way. Especially not the counter attacking part.
Once again it's really humbling to know that so much goes into something I take for granted as "taken care of by other people".

>Spots you with a 300 dollar quadcopter and drops artillery on your location
Tanks are on their way out especially in increasing urban settings. Not him.