You're kidding, right Can?
Not kidding. It's still a tank and it's cheap.
That makes sense. Thanks for the answer.
What small nation? Switzerland is a small nation and it has Leo2A4s and the're very affordable.My questions to everyone is what tank out there would be quite affordable to a small nation. Taking into consideration protection, firepower, survival, and mobility.
Most airplanes needs a place to land for refueling and reequipping, AKA airfields.
A small country would have less chance to operate several airfields without having them bombed into gravel during the first week of a war.
So while airsuperiority by aircrafts opens up for a nice chance to use the same airforce actively against the enemy, they would still need to be protected by heavy countermeassures in order to keep the aircrafts in the air.
While mobile SAM sites can be targeted and destroyed, it still represents a threath that the enemy has to deal with before they can knock out that mass of otherwise obsolete tanks that effectively blocks the way.
Small countries can't fight a war on a superior enemy's premise, they have to develop their own doctrine, and be prepared to give up something in order to lure the enemy into carefully prepared traps.
It's guerilla warfare on a larger scale.
The reality is that armor throught its history did and still does operate effectively even when the enemy has air superiority, see Germany during WW2.The reality is that armour can not operate well without air superiority and you can not gain air superiority or even parity with just SAM's and AAA you have to have integrated systems.).
Again depends on a country, in some regions of Africa or South America T-55s are an investment worth taking.As far as armour goes I think you would have to be completely out of your mind to buy T-55s).
T-64s and T-72s can be a challenging opponent to any tank in the world, literally.or any Russian equipment up to the T-80,
So lets imagine that you have 120 tanks and your enemy has 400, not only will be not be able to deploy them in needed spots in sufficient amount but you dont have reserves as well.on the whole I would look at buying lower quantities of high quality gear and investing heavily in training
200 T-55s with conscript crews will shoot up any 10 tank unit in the world and it wont even matter that they are not able to breach the hull.(basically I am saying you would be better off with 10 Leo2s with well trained crews than 200 T-55s loaded with conscripts).
T-64s and T-72s can be a challenging opponent to any tank in the world, literally.
So lets imagine that you have 120 tanks and your enemy has 400, not only will be not be able to deploy them in needed spots in sufficient amount but you dont have reserves as well.
200 T-55s with conscript crews will shoot up any 10 tank unit in the world and it wont even matter that they are not able to breach the hull.
I will skip all the individual points and just go with a single response, if you are buying T-55-T-72s you are buying them for regime maintenance not to fight a war with anyone that can spend a couple of mill on ATGM's and about the same on some clapped out old Russian Mil-24s.
The fact is that short of the latest model Russian tanks all the previous models are little more than cans of pre-cooked meat to anyone wielding more than sticks and stones.
T-64's and T-72's have such crap FCS that they would not even be able to accurately return fire to an upgraded or modern MBT like the Leo 2 or M1A2 Abrams, hell an upgraded M60A3 MBT even. If you wanted to get the models of T-72 that actually have decent equipment like ERA or a decent FCS, they would be more than likely out of your budget in this scenario if you wanted 400 of them.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.