>italy announced a 16bln€ plan to buy >1000 rheinmetall ifv vehicles. That alone would make italy's army one of the most equipped in Europe.
So target practice for a beyond-the-horizon missile system launched ground-to-ground or air-to-ground? As an attacking force, conventional ground forces and tactics are a non-runner in a modern theatre of operations when faced against air and drone support. This is why no single EU country is incentivised into dumping money into any single area - as the only probable defense would be against USA/Russia/China to begin with.
The US proved it beyond doubt in Afghanistan - partisans simply haven't a chance against a gunship with IR or NV optics; the last time they levelled the playing field against air interdictors was in Charlie Wilson's Afghanistan when the Mujahideen took on that era of Soviet gunships with hand-held AA systems.
Italy had a joke of tanks in the last decade(s), that weren't clearly on par with the other European alternatives and the defense budget went to other places, namely navy and air force. Since some of the Italian tanks are being dismissed, there was the need for a new tank, but not having invested much in tanks had the effect of not having cutting edge technology to develop an alternative. So the decision was taken to produce tanks from rheinmetall (Leonardo was available to another German producer, but they didn't want to transfer technology and produce in italy).
Not having tanks is a big no no due to latest events, I do not see the grudge you hold against them when it's clear they wouldn't be used in the same flat scenario of Ukraine or Poland. Given that Italy is highly mountainous, it made sense to prioritize air force and navy first. I think they're also compatible for anti drone guns
Piaggio air space was acquired a few weeks ago by baykar, hopefully it will produce drones.
I do not get why you're saying that a change in the approach of war makes tank not useful anymore, when it's clear they will eventually be adapted to counter drones and similar threats
So target practice for a beyond-the-horizon missile system launched ground-to-ground or air-to-ground? As an attacking force, conventional ground forces and tactics are a non-runner in a modern theatre of operations when faced against air and drone support. This is why no single EU country is incentivised into dumping money into any single area - as the only probable defense would be against USA/Russia/China to begin with.
The US proved it beyond doubt in Afghanistan - partisans simply haven't a chance against a gunship with IR or NV optics; the last time they levelled the playing field against air interdictors was in Charlie Wilson's Afghanistan when the Mujahideen took on that era of Soviet gunships with hand-held AA systems.