What is Best MBT in Asia?

**ned kelly** · 01 Mar 08,, 23:56

what about the 59 "refurbished" M1A1 Abrams tanks Australia bought 2nd hand from the USA in 2004?

I can see the US govt rep meeting the Aussie buyer
/in best used car salesman voice
"Sonny, she's had only one owner who drove it to church on sunday"

shame we didn't get the M1A2 though

**Stan187** · 02 Mar 08,, 06:23

Originally Posted by ned kelly

shame we didn't get the M1A2 though

Why shame? Who are you guys expecting to take on who the M1A1 cannot handle?

**Firral** · 02 Mar 08,, 10:30

Originally Posted by Stan187

Why shame? Who are you guys expecting to take on who the M1A1 cannot handle?

I think, it will be bad against tanks of an era of 90th years.

**Pioneer** · 02 Apr 08,, 11:46

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I take extreme offense to your assumption. The fact is that the Israelis have no experience that even remotely comes close to the tank battles of WWII. They never experienced a attrition battle lasting months and in the losses of thousands of tanks. The Israelis never faced a Kursk which is by far the most important tank battle to be studied ever.

The Israelis did a few innovative things such as Sharon at Suez that deserves study but to suggest they outclass the West is beyond undeserving arrogance. We and the Soviet Army Groups that faced each other would have made mince meat out of the Israelis in any full blown war, no matter what they would do. They simply do not have the experience nor the knowhow to fight a real tank war.

I am sorry, but what was the 1973 War then?
It was a war of attrition from the start, for it was the intention of the Arab world (and Soviet Union) to draw Israel into a war of attrition, to which Israel could not afford
But the Israelis held their own and turned the tide, which went as far as both the Soviets and United States flying in desperately need equipment and supplies to their allies respectively!
The Israeli Armed Forces had on a couple of occasions faced a multi-pronged attack, by superior numbered and equipped enemies, that were hell bent of not just defeating the IDF, but crushing the country of Israel as a whole!!

The Soviets put themselves into the predicament of being invaded during WWII, the way it was, due to its own dictator’s (Stalin) ignorance and arrogance and lack of true military experiance and knowledge.

Israel did not have the space to carry out a fighting withdraw to buy time, like the Soviets did.
The Israeli’s were out numbered in troops, aircraft, tanks, artillery etc…………., when compared to the Arabs.
Where as even though the German’s launched their attack upon the Soviet Union, the Soviets in fact had greater numbers in artillery, troops, armour and aircraft than its attacker!

Oh and as far as your comment -
'The Israelis never faced a Kursk which is by far the most important tank battle to be studied ever'.

You are right!
In the battle of Kursk, the Soviets had month of pre-warning of the Germans intention and place of were the Germans would attack.
The Soviets utilized this time to bring up massive forces, superior numbers of tanks, artillery, engineers and mass infantry to create a massive defensive position in waiting.
The German's with over confidence walked into the massive jaws of the Soviet trap, which committed it to battle - the largest armoured battle in history!
So you are right - Israel has never faced a Kursk!
Instead the IDF did better in retrospect than the Soviets.
For the Israeli's were surprised by the Arab attack
Israel was out numbered in armour, artillery, engineers and infantry (and almost lost air superiority, due to the Arabs use of Soviet supplied SAMs).

Yes Israel didn’t face a Kursk!
It did better!
This was predominantly due to its professionalism, training and leadership.

Regards
Pioneer

**Officer of Engineers** · 02 Apr 08,, 11:53

Originally Posted by Pioneer

Yes Israel didn’t face a Kursk!
It did better!
This was predominantly due to its professionalism, training and leadership.

Regards
Pioneer

I've already given proof that the Israelis were scared crapless when the Soviets threatened intervention. I stand by my assertion that they were nowhere close to being a WWIII army. We were a WWIII army. And no way in hell do I consider the 73 War anywhere close to Kursk. It was certainly nowhere close to being better. One thing the Israelis do suck at and continue to suck at is combat engineering, let alone the air-land doctrine or the ability to face attack-by-echelon.

Secondly, the Israelis never fought a meat grinder lasting days and weeks. Until they do, I don't think they measure up at all.

**Pioneer** · 02 Apr 08,, 11:54

Originally Posted by dabrownguy

Only Asian tanks.
The list would be top 10!
My list.
1. Markeva 4
2. T-90 Japanese
3. Arjun
4. Korean mini Abrahm
5. Black Eagle
6. Type 98G
7. Type 90S
8. Type 80Up Graded.
9. Al-Khalid
10. T-72 Upgraded.

Sorry
But who in Asia uses the Mirkeva Mk4???????????????

Regards
Pioneer

**Officer of Engineers** · 02 Apr 08,, 11:56

The Israelis.

**Pioneer** · 02 Apr 08,, 12:50

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I've already given proof that the Israelis were scared crapless when the Soviets threatened intervention. I stand by my assertion that they were nowhere close to being a WWIII army. We were a WWIII army. And no way in hell do I consider the 73 War anywhere close to Kursk. It was certainly nowhere close to being better. One thing the Israelis do suck at and continue to suck at is combat engineering, let alone the air-land doctrine or the ability to face attack-by-echelon.

Secondly, the Israelis never fought a meat grinder lasting days and weeks. Until they do, I don't think they measure up at all.

Again you are correct my friend!

The Israeli’s had nothing in Engineering, when compared to the Arabs (and their Soviet advisors who trained them – and more likely advised them at the Suez crossing!!)
But all the Engineering talent and capability ended in a big fat ‘Zero’ for the Arabs in the end!!!
Thankfully the Egyptians woke up to the fact that they would be better of in a so-called peace with Israel!
For Egypt (and Jordan), I think it was a case of Once bitten, twice shy, three times a mess!
These little military excursions by Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon………..end up being very expensive for all these Arab country’s that had the idea of being the ‘destroyers of Israel’
It cost them greatly financially, physically and politically (both externally and internally)
Especially when their main finance – the Soviet Union collapsed, and didn’t want to play superpowers anymore.

No the Arabs dropped the ball
Yes Egypt made peace with Israel
Jordan finally woke up to fact that it was one of the smallest and closest states next to Israel, and would always cop a beating for its Arab brothers – so stopped playing follow the Arab leader, every time the Arabs wanted to play big boy games!
Libya and Egypt started bluing with one another!
Lebanon went into melt down – with Syria sticking its nose in!
Iraq invaded Iran
Saudi Arabia financed everything and everyone to sit on the fence and watch.
The PLO stirred the pot in every place it was located – causing most of the Arab states to be more concerned with internal security, than that of Middle-East domination.

And Israel
Well they have learnt much and developed much (not always good)
And still to this day I would back and put my money on Israel and its IDF over that of any Arab country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And what did your Cold War Soviet attack-by-echelon achieve?
A country that made itself bankrupt.
A lot of conscripts out of a job.
A lot of scrap metal that used to be called the Soviet military machine.

And like the hang-over that Germany had after the First World War (which led to WWII)
The Russian’s are unable to let go of history and what was!
But is no more!

Regards
Pioneer

**Officer of Engineers** · 02 Apr 08,, 13:15

Oh for Pete sakes,

The Arabs were nowhere close being the Soviet level

de Atkine | Why Arabs Lose Wars

And the Israelis were unwilling and, therefore, unable to meet the Soviets head on. We were. What does that tell you?

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/isr...mona-67-a.html

**Pioneer** · 03 Apr 08,, 07:47

Originally Posted by ned kelly

what about the 59 "refurbished" M1A1 Abrams tanks Australia bought 2nd hand from the USA in 2004?

I can see the US govt rep meeting the Aussie buyer
/in best used car salesman voice
"Sonny, she's had only one owner who drove it to church on sunday"

shame we didn't get the M1A2 though

Still think the Leopard 2 would have been a better choice!

Regards
Pioneer

**Pioneer** · 03 Apr 08,, 07:51

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Oh for Pete sakes,

The Arabs were nowhere close being the Soviet level

de Atkine | Why Arabs Lose Wars

And the Israelis were unwilling and, therefore, unable to meet the Soviets head on. We were. What does that tell you?

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/isr...mona-67-a.html

Please relax Officer of Engineers
For this is the beauty of Forums
To give and take others opinions, knowledge and experiences!
You are sounding like an Officer!
Ha ha...........................

)

Regards
Pioneer

**Pioneer** · 03 Apr 08,, 10:26

All I am saying is that the Arabs were given some of the latest (and I think some of the world best weapon systems of the day!) Soviet designed and built weapons to be used as their spear-head (as per the Soviet's own doctrine of Shock Forces) - like the revolutionary BMP-1 IFV, SA-6 SPSAM, SA-7 MPSAM, the T-62 MBT and some of the best amphibious/bridging equipment available in the world + more intelligence, Elint and recon than what the Arabs would have known what to do with it.

With this new state-of-the art equipment, came the biggest commitment of technical support and training that the Soviets and Warsaw Pact has ever provided any other country (outside of the Warsaw Pact)!
The Suez Cannel crossing was not an Egyptian thought-up pipe dream, but a typical and well calculated Soviet plan, that the Egyptions exicuted

Yes at the commencement of the Suez crossing, the Egyptian and the other Arabs held the initiative and the full element of surprise on its side (as per Soviet doctrine demands!)

The Arabs initiative was lost though, when instead of being over-run and or fleeing (as was the case with the Soviets when Germany attacked), the Israelis stood their ground and fought and died were they stood (this is the primary difference between the Israeli Defence Forces and the Arabs!!!!).
Yes the Israeli’s took one hell of a beating – It almost lost air superiority over the battlefield, due to the first major use of a well planed and designed layered air-defence system – with SAM’s and AAA (and self over confidence)
Its armour was mauled, predominantly due to the first major battle to involve the use and deployment of ATGM in vast numbers!

But it was the skill, training, initiative, experience, professionalism and C3 which allowed the IDF to take stock of this desperate situation and stop the Arab invasion, then to go on the attack.

All this was a Soviet conceived, planned and sponsored and equipped operation.
All this was based on Soviet doctrine of Shock Warfare, which it had planned and equipped for in case of war with NATO.
The Arabs had the superiority in manpower, tanks, aircraft, artillery, over Israel – as stated by soviet doctrine dictated.
The Arabs had the massive advantage of being able to attack Israel on multiple fronts – causing Israel to divide its defences and resources
The Arabs failed, and so too did the entire Soviet conceived doctrine.
The Soviets were so shocked and taken back by this failure that it spent many years analyzing its failures, which itself required the Soviet’s Army to reassess its whole war fighting doctrine (I have always wondered how many Soviet high ranking officers would have been put up against a wall a shot?)

So I would not be too confident that the Soviet’s vs. Israel would be a push over!

For another thing that has become very obvious since the Second World War, is that the Soviet soldier is a tenacious fighter when it is his homeland at risk (added to the fact that there is a political officer behind him with a bullet with his name on it if he does not obey every crazy conceived order he is give!).
As to have the Israeli soldier!
But the Soviet soldier is an entirely different beast when it comes to invading another country, that he knows and care little about, let alone die for (Exemplified by the Russian invasion of Finland, and decades later in the invasion of Afghanistan)
In both invasions of Finland and Afghanistan, the Soviets were embarrassed by the fact that so many of their soldiers deserted to the enemy!
‘Just think’ Finland was not much different to that of Israel – small size, small population, geographically isolated, a small Defence Force.
And yet it was able to both stop and bleed the Russian Army for a very long period of time, until world events (WWII) isolated it from help or hope.
Israel is very similar in this respect.

Oh and as you rightly state -

And the Israelis were unwilling and, therefore, unable to meet the Soviets head on

And what other country on earth was able to do this?
Could or would Australia, Canada.................?

I have never worked with the IDF!
How many conventional battles did the Soviet Union / Russia fight Post WWII?
How many conventional battles has the IDF fought Post WWII?
Given the choice of fight with or beside the IDF, Arab or Soviet soldier?
I would make it the IDF any day

As Sun Tzu said -
‘Know your enemy and know yourself’

And whats that other important proverb –
‘Never underestimate your enemy’

Regards
Pioneer

**Ucar** · 03 Apr 08,, 13:06

Sir

You are assuming too much and going way ahead of yourself to jump to conclusions.

You equate the Arab defeats against Israel with the collapse of the Soviet doctrine. This is assuming that Arabs were trained strictly along Soviet training regime, and operated according to political/military framework by which this doctrine was formed. All of these are only assumptions. OoE has proved that training in Arab armies was/is NOT being conducted according to Soviet or US standards. We already know that most of the equipment -especially combat aircraft- were not used according to Soviet air combat doctrine of the time. Moreover, the lack of an operational Egyptian reserve to initiate deep battle operations is more than proof that Soviet military doctrine was selectively applied, if at all. You are assuming that Arab armies operated according to the Soviet military doctrine of the time. Utilization of selective military tactics/strategies does not equate with the application of military thinking and practices as a whole.

Secondly, you are quoting Soviet offensive operations in Finland and Afghanistan as instances where the Soviet soldier fared poorly when operating out of his homeland. I would be very pleased to read about your remarks on Soviet offensive operations in WW II, especially after mid-1944 when Soviet soldiers proved themselves extremely capable of invading foreign soil. They were really a different beast when they were rolling up the Wehrmacht in Prussia.

I think you are basing your argument on weak legs. Moreover, your arguments would be much more credible if, as a military serviceman for 19 years, you had known that Merkava was an Israeli tank operated by Isreal which is a country based in Asia.

**Pioneer** · 03 Apr 08,, 15:35

Hello Ucar

Sorry – But I have always known Israel to be in the Middle-East, as opposed to Asia!
I have always known the Merkava to be an Israeli designed, built and operated tank.
But the way it was worded ‘Only Asian tanks’, coupled with my understanding of Israel being in the Middle-East, I assumed that another country in Asia had purchased / acquired it!
So hence my question, that you have misconstrued
My 19-years of service in the ADF has given me much in physical and educational value and operational experience.
One of these is to adapt and over come pettiness, and get on with the job at hand!

Regards
Pioneer

**Pioneer** · 03 Apr 08,, 16:10

[QUOTE=Ucar;476946]Sir
Secondly, you are quoting Soviet offensive operations in Finland and Afghanistan as instances where the Soviet soldier fared poorly when operating out of his homeland. I would be very pleased to read about your remarks on Soviet offensive operations in WW II, especially after mid-1944 when Soviet soldiers proved themselves extremely capable of invading foreign soil. They were really a different beast when they were rolling up the Wehrmacht in Prussia.QUOTE]

Yes the Soviet soldier was a much more efficient fighting machine, when they went on the offensive - 'especially after mid-1944'.
They rightly had a vendetta against their enemy (Nazi Germany) which had not just invaded their home land, but murder, raped and pillaged millions of their people, families and loved ones.
How do you think you would fell after years of relentless war, when it was kill or be killed?

But in modern times (post WWII) the Soviet Union has not faced such a ruthless enemy as Nazi Germany, let alone been invaded, to create that instilled hostility and hatred within the average Soviet soldier!
The Soviet soldier became more determined, as the Germans knowing all to well what was at risk – For it was know their turn to risk loss of their homeland and mass retribution upon the people of Germany, for what they had done intern to the people of the Soviet Union.
Also the average German solder knew that if captured, he was unlikely to receive warm attention from the Soviets - so they fought harder, which intern made the Soviets fight harder.

But again that was a very different war and a very different cause, within the mind of the then patriotic Soviet soldier, when compared to the Soviet soldier who was ordered to take the likes of Finland and Afghanistan for no apparent reason except politics!

Regards
Pioneer