Thread: What is Best MBT in Asia?

A reply to Officer of Engineers.

ARGH. I am new here, but already stumbled many times upon your strange postings. I am sorry i have to get personal here, but i think i have to in this case. This is almost annoying. You seem to have a great deal of professional knowledge with Zero professionalism. I know americans tend to be this way, but you're a perfect and crystallized personification of this type. You are always arguing with people that humbly try to suggest or prove that some sort of non-american system or weapon or tactic is any good, or may be better than american one. And may i also add that you do this in a highly strange, offensive, self-righteous, over-confident way, and with complete and deadly seriousness. This could be very funny if it wasnt so sad. And the thing is you're not the only one that behaves this way.
Anyhow, to the point: what you're saying is so outlandish that I even dont know where to start. But I'll try anyway, knowing that you will probably just get mad or something. First, you say that "israel has no experience that even remotely comes close to the battles of WW2". Well, lets consider that. What is the meaning of the word "remotely"? Really, aside of the big tank battles of WW2 there were no bigger tank battles in the history of man kind than those of the 1973 war, in all the documented history of all human wars and conflicts of the 20'th century. So, 1973 is kinda number 2. I think that number 2 with a slight margin qualifies as "remotely" close (in the big battles of the Yom Kippur war thousands of tanks took part, not much less than in the big battles of the WW2).
Okay, now you say that israelis "never experienced an attrition battle lasting months and losses of thousands of tanks". Umm... i dont know if you're aware of this, but tank battles never last for months. What does last for months is the campaign, which can have many tank battles. So, what you're saying is that Israel doesnt have the experience of being in a long war fighting tank battles one after another, taking the brunt, the punishment, and winning in the long haul. Well, the fact that Israel never fought a long war is true, i agree with that, but i surely cant agree with the assertion that israel doesnt have the experience of long and continuous fighting that requires tanks. Israel's tankists fought during the 1950's in the continuous border disputes with Syria and Jordan, in the 1956 war, in 1967 war, then in the attrition war, then the 1973 war, then the galilee war, and in between Israel has used tanks in its operations against terrorists. If thats not pretty-much-continuous-fighting and not a-long-run-long-haul, i dont know what is, really. If you're still saying that this isnt really continuous fighting, then i'll have to say, that this is another type of fighting, and another type of experience, not less important, and if Israel has it, the US hasnt, just as Israel doesnt have the a-real-continuous-fighting experience of the WW2, according to you. And might i add, that this WW2 experience is much less important and relevant, as in the future there will be no equivalent conflicts, and no equivalent tank-battles to those of the WW2. So, if we will have to choose between these types of "experiences", then Israel's is the more valuable, also because it's more diverse and more modern.
You also say that Israel never had "a Koursk", and that this battle lasted longer and involved more tanks than "all of Israeli tank experience combined". Whether this statement is an attempt to underline something with a clear exaggeration or a serious one i dont know, but if its the latter then I think this debate has no aim and you dont have to read any further, just buy yourself a WW2 recreationist's uniform and go play with your buddies or something (oh, and a short remark: you cant say "The Battle of Kursk lasted longer than all of Israeli tank experience combined in both time of combat and numbers committed", thats not proper english, as something cant "last longer.. both in time and in numbers". Something can "last longer" only in time, not in "numbers commited". Its funny, even to me, and my English is poor).
Okay, now you're saying that "The Israelis never faced a Kursk which is by far the most important tank battle to be studied ever", ergo, you say, israel cant be said to have a very rich experience in tank-war. Umm.. and why is that, might i ask? It's like saying "well, everyone knows that the M1A2 Abrams is the best tank in the world, thus, other countries dont have good tanks". Some sick logic, isnt it?
What you're also saying is that israel never fought battles like Stalingrad in which "a determined oppenant made mince meats of tanks". Actually Israel faces the most determined and tough opponents ever, that are gladly prepared to put expolsives on themmselfs and go Jihad on Israel's tanks, and do that often.
In addition to that, once and for all, americans never fought long and great tank battles themselves, russians and germans did. The US just stabbed the germans in the back, and fought with their ramaining forces, while the serious fighting was taking place on the eastern front. Actually, the americans even couldnt do that successfully, and while the second front was all about helping the russians defeat the germans in the east, the americans were constantly demanding that the russians "press those germans" to make their advance on the western front more easy, thus kinda defeating its whole point. Funny.
You're saying that "to suggest they (the israelis) outclass the West is beyond undeserving arrogance". Well, who was suggesting that? Are you fighting ghosts here? I never said anything even close, I specifically remember I said nothing about "who's pipi is bigger" or "who outclasses who", I just underlined that the israelis have vast experience. Or, you can quote me, to prove me wrong. Again, for some reason you always seem to think someone tries to diminish you and prove he's stronger, and react violently, and then say that what other people have said is "undeserving". Isnt that ironic?
You continue to say that "We and the Soviet Army Groups that faced each other would have made mince meat out of the Israelis in any full blown war". How very mature... Well, you have something to prove that? I personally think this statement is "undeserving", but hey, this is me.. Speaking about the facts, then soviets had like 30.000 tanks they could use in a war with the west, and Israel of course couldn't handle all those, this is ovbious. The same applies to the NATO forces. On the other hand, if the number of soviet and israeli tanks in one single battle would of been equal, then russians would of ended as mince meat themselves. Why, you ask? Because the Israeli experience of fighting against arab tank crews that were trained russian-style and by russian instructors, and had russian tanks proves so (and they even had more tanks). But hey, i know facts arent your strong side. And then you say "in a full blown war". Huh? This is beyond understanding, really. Are you saying that the USSR (or the US) would of defeated little Israel if they had a war? Yeah, sane scenario. Or are you saying... hey, i give up, i dont know what you're saying.
Israelis just "simply do not have the experience nor the knowhow to fight a real tank war", you tell us. And a "real tank war" is what? I could swear that the tank wars Israel and the Arab Countries have fought are pretty real, but hey... I guess that you have your own sense of "real tank war", and everything else is just baloney. And who determined what is "real tank war"? You? If what took place in 1973 isnt "real tank war" then nothing in the future will be"real tank war" either. I guess your understanding of "real tank war" is too narrow, and doesnt account for the best part of all tank engagements or tank-battles of the 20th century. Nice theory, but then one could claim that your "real tank war" doesnt interest and isnt important to anyone that is not an historian or a megalomaniac or something. And of course then one could say that even if Israel doesnt have experience in a "real tank war", its experience is nevertheless very valuable to "not real tank war" which is like the best part of fighting in which tanks were and will be invloved.
Okay, now a few general thoughts: Why do you think that Israel's experience of tank fighting against guerilla forces, which is undisputedly the richest, isnt valueble experience? And why do you think that Israel's experience in using tanks in urban areas, which is also undisputedly the richest, isnt valueble experience for the evaluation and learning of tank-warfare in armies all around the world?
I can try to answer this. It's beacuse you want to prove, like always, that the US is the biggest and strongest and the most-anything-you-like in the world, and if Russia isnt part of the equation, you're even ready to say that they are okay too, but certainly not some other country, which is not the US. The US has more experience in big tank battles of the WW2, so you say that this type of experience is the only one that is worth something. If the US would of had more experience in urban use of tanks, or in short but explosive conflicts, you would without a doubt say that this type of experience is all-important, as compared to any other. Indeed, how on earth can someone have the nerve to say that they are in some way better or more advanced, or have something more valueble than what the americans have?
I could go like this disputing every word you've said for ages, but I think this is enough to get the idea. This attitude sucks, my friend, and i hope you wont take this personally (and the fact that you speak of other people's "undeserving arrogance" is so ironic, funny and meaningful that no further explanations are needed).