Remember that the A400M will replace smaller C-130s and C-160s in Europe. So there absolutely is a gain in strategic capabilities.......The A400M's range circle around Paris contains much of the French zone of influence in Africa.
I guess that's part of the problem, the difference in definition of "strategic". For European nations "strategic" is one end of Europe to the other. For the USA its East Coast USA to Central Europe (Frankfurt, Germany)
Heavy tanks were considered less important than they used to be in massive cold-war age conflicts.....Within Europe, heavy tanks will usually be transported by by train.
C-17 was used to transport an entire USMC LAV brigade to an unpaved field in Afghanistan and three M1 Abrams tank companies with support units into an austere field in Iraq. The US considers armor to still be very much relevant even in "regional conflicts" at strategic ranges.
The A400 was designed to transport modern (that is 1990s/early 2000s) quick reaction forces.
I think this may answer it. Apparently Europe's only expeditionary forces are "quick reaction forces" which are by definition light. The vast preponderance of European forces are garrison forces and neither designed nor equipped to be expeditionary (deployed overseas). This explains well the European military reaction to the Kosovo/Bosnia conflict.
In the US we have some garrison forces, but a lot (most?) are expeditionary. Indeed the entire USN and USMC are expeditionary and a big chunk of USAF and US Army are expeditionary.
A400 does seem to fit well in a European force structure which finally helps me make sense of its design. I was viewing this too much from a US perspective and US expeditionary forces mindset. This also helps explain why the UK, Australia, and Canada acquired C-17s. The UK is an island nation and the only remaining European power with globally deployed military forces, and Canada and Australia potentially have to move large/heavy units across big bodies of water also. It's finally coming together for me. THANKS!!!