Has anyone read the article on US supply lines in Iraq? Due to lack-of-training and such a lot of shiny M1s went to war with broken computers, nav gear; what I mean is anything complicated is bound to break down and terribly expensive to replace. Also, in my notion of war you will suffer several thounsands of casualties a day, sometimes.(Iraq parts 1 and 2 were *NOT* wars, WO1 and 2 were). With other words, you will need to replace a lot of equipent, and both the US and Russia could (because what they made was simple -Shermans and T34s). A single M1 costs -no idea, but a lot- and quite possibly too much to go to war-on-*my*- scale. The T34 was, as far as I'm concerned, the best tank ever. In the Stalingrad tractor factory, the workes made or repaired the tanks at night and fought with them the next day, only to go back to the plant in the evening and... One could *not* do this with any modern tank. For control missions -like Iraq- you don't really need a 125mm smooth bore spaced-out mega-cannon with groovy kinetic superbullets. A -to take something else- bunch of vintage Tiger tanks could have done the job just as well, right here in our brave new world. Having a lot of Main Battle Tanks are a remainder of the Cold War, and are quicky getting redundant. Who are you going to shoot anyway? A Toyota Landcruiser with an RPG in the back? Again, a (...) Sherman could do it too. Therefore: the best tank in the world isn't nessesarily the most modern one, the fastest one, the best looking, the most lethal, whatever. It needs to do a job and get it over with, as cost-effective as possible. Read Sun-Tsu: wars cripple a country, it doesn't matter wether you attack or defend.

"MikkoLn wrote: "Anyway, even here, I think T-series has suffered a bad inflation because of elder Iraqi tanks failure and the whole series is seen much inferior to western tanks. Without a single good reason." Except for the testing done at Aberdeen with T-64 and T-80 variants after the fall of the Soviet Union. Tanks were acquired in various ways by Western intelligence agencies. The T-64 was excellent for its generation and certainly better than US equivalent generation M60. But not in the same generation by a long shot as the M1, Challenger, Leo, etc. And the T-80 was basically an upgrade of the T-64 with reactive armor and better fire control. Same gun, same chassis, same passive armor. Result of a M1 vs. T-80 would be the same as a M1 vs. T-72. One M1 shot fired, one T-80 catastrophic kill " So you basicly just wrote to agree with me, no? The fact that we both brought up is that tanks from different decades and generations can't be as such compared, or they can, but the results are evident. The question about KE armour values is a very interesting one, and full of still unknown features or things that can't be said for 100% sure. Over the years, estimations about different kinds of Chobham variations protection have chanced radically from time to time, depending on the source, but most of the biggest speculations have really been (or at least we have considered them) speculations with no real factual value. Anyway, what I've managed to study and especially see and heard from those who know better than me, M1A2 frontal turret KE protection straight on is generally accepted at being roughly 900mm, though the erlier models had somewhat significantly less (500...750). Latest German Leopards have different armour (have had all the time) and are propably giving even higher degree of protection against KE, in excess of 1000mm (though also 1100 is claimed) in A5. Considering that the latest russian penetrators are capable of less than 700mm KE, both M1 and Leo are perfectly safe over their frontal arc against 125. And even more, older 125mm ammunition, especially ones like used by Iraq in 91, is nowhere near the capability of the more recent 125mm ammunition.

No, I wrote to disagree with you. You said that the T series had a bad reputation with no good reason for it. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, that is. I was trying to point out that, even without considering the results of the T-72 vs. M1 in 1991 we could definitely see that the at least through the T-80 the Russian tanks were not on par with the Western tanks. The interesting thing is that until high tech began to play such a major factor (chobham armor, gun stabilization, gun barrel metallurgy, etc.) the Soviets/Russians were able to build tanks equal to or better than the West. The T-64 was a fine tank for the time and probably better than the M60, Leo I, AMX-30 or Chieftain. The T-72 was a cheap version of the T-64 primarily intended for export. The T-80 was the next upgrade or new model. It has reactive armor, which is a help against frontal attack ATGM's and RPG's and such, but not much help against even TOW-II, let alone the newest generation of tank killers. And of course it does nothing to protect against the new hypervelocity KE penetrators. But the real question here is the T-90. On paper it appears that Russia may have a very good tank. The things that make me question that are that it is built on the same chassis and has the same gun system as the T-64/T-80. So, no matter what it will have the limitations those tanks had. It would be like taking the Leo I or M60A3 and upgrading it. Better armor, reactive armor, etc. How far could you really take the vehicle? It would never be able to be on par with the newest generation tanks. And I don't think the T-90 will be either. If Russia wants a truly modern tank it will have to start from scratch, just as the western nations did. If it wants a reasonable upgrade that is not too expensive and can be exported due to lower price, than the T-90 is the way to go.

I noticed one of your critical remarks about mr. Rumsfeld. If you mean that in these times the armed forces have to maintain diversity, as we do not know which enemy we will be facing tomorrow, I could not agree with you more!

That is precisely what I mean. Rumsfeld, in his quest for "efficiency" is eliminating redundancy. Other militaries have tried this and the results were disastrous. The only thing more expensive than the best military in the world in the world is the second best military in the world. Just ask the Wehrmacht.

The other piece is that we don't know what technological innovation tomorrow will render our supposedly invincible superweapon impotent. The US did not and does not have the most advanced weapons in every single category. TOW-II, M1A1, M16, etc. are not the best weapons in their category. But, we have redundancy and a broad spectrum of capabilities.

Yes, it's very true that soviet haven't build a tank directly comparable to western Chobham-generation tanks. Even the T90 was seen somewhat as a stopgap before a new design could be introduced somewhere in 1995...2000. Comparing upgradeability of M60 with T72 series broughts up some interesting and vital topics considering the effectiveness of the most current T72/T90. Even the M60 may well had been upgraded to add-on or even built-on modern armour, but it has the same deficts as russian era. Though the K5 gives extremely high level of protection to the current soviet designs, the overall layout is such that not every single spot can be protected. But, considering the weight-material needed/efficiency relation of Chobham and K5, it's easily noticeable that era can give much better add-on protection even if it can't do purely on it's own. Chobham, on the other hand, excels really when it can be laid on comprehensive large and heavy blocks covering large surfaces. Thus one can really say that from the mid 80's (or actually from 70's) onward, both sides have chosen a solution best suitable for current respective situations. But back to the M60/T72 subject. The M60 development line is directly dated back to the WWII, so as such it's much much older design than either T64/80 or T72/90. And it's reflected much to effective upgrade possibilities (as many vital conponents have changed so radically that it's impossible to fit them onto ond model anymore). T72 can be considered a line starter (like M26) and T90 the final production what can be made out of it (M60). The recent T90 has reached a point, where none (or very few) of the vital components are same as those used at the beginning, but where obviously the solutions to develop the design further have became ever more few (reflected in soviet prototypes and designs of a new generation type throughout the 90's). In a comparision early T72 vs. late T72 (T90) it's evident that all the factors affecting to major performance have been upgraded about as far as possible (some things are not possible, like old style autoloader). Early T72 had thin steel skin, now it has layered armour and very advanced era. Engine, transmission, parts of the suspension system etc. are totally new. Ammunition is totally different. Early tanks had primitive stabilization, limited night operability and poor sights. Recent have western thermal imagers and good fire on the move capability, best active ATGM countermeasures anywhere etc. We could go on and on. On the role intended, multi-purpose MBT, soviet armour still today possessess obviously more than sufficient potential, with many advanced features even in the whole world scale, and with better adaptability to wide range of roles and missions than western tanks. On the other hand, as of a role like tank sniper, which is brought very much up in the western doctrines and way of thinking, the defects you brought up are vital and they can't compete with tanks like M1 or Leopard on that matter. In the western doctrine, the tank has become ever more a specialized tool - with requirements to built it respectively - while in russia the original role of tank is retained.

You follow my line of thinking very well. I am of the honest oppinion, that soldiers have always (perhaps with the exception of the ancient romans) been sent to war with the wrong equipment, because the technology has changed between the time the equipment was manufactured and the time of action. This leaves the arguments of the best tanks somewhat in the lurch, as the problem is NOT what the best is (as that will have to be answered under a stringent set of assumptions), but to avoid the worst, that is have equipment where the deficiencies an be overcome through training and tactics.

I always find it interesting that people who don't appear to have operational experience challenge the statements of people who have been operational. The "our tank is better than your tank" response is always to be expected, but I would have thought that anyone who has been operational, and certainly been in "hot" is more qualified to provide information. Text books (and similar sources) are references only. The platform is only as good as the crew inside asssuming that all platforms are equal - which they aren't.

Nijntje, this is total crap. First off, if a major world war is fought it will be a come as you are affair, at least for the first year or so until countries can start ramping up their military-industrial complex for war. If there is a fairly long prelude of conflict like prior to WWI and WWII then everyone's industry will have, to some degree, been put on a warfooting. Aside from that, there have been rumors and news reports during both 1991 and 2003 of the US Army's inability to keep significant numbers of M1's operational. I won't speak for 2003, but in 1991 my company (14 tanks) crossed the Iraqi border with all 14 tanks operational. We finished the ground war with 13 tanks operational, one tank had a failed emergency fuel cutoff valve that rendered the tank hors de combat. This was AFTER 6 months of continuous operation during Desert Shield. The supposedly high maintenance requirements that will sink the M1 as a viable tank are a bunch of bull. If a third world army was trying to maintain them I agree. For an industrial nation, different story. Now, on to the other piece. No Desert Storm was not a war comparable to WWI or WWII. But then again, no other war can really compare to those two. So, please, let's not try. Desert Storm was, OTOH, the largest armored combat since WWII. And it was made very clear that if you didn't have weaponry and training like the US and UK deployed you would lose in a stand up fight any day of the week. If T-72's crewed by the Iraqi Republican Guard didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell, what chance could a T-34 possibly have against M1's, Challengers, AH-64's, A-10's, etc, no matter how good the crew? I think it should be fairly clear that one American or UK armored division of today could take on several Russian, German, US or UK armored divisions of the WWII era and clean their clocks in a stand up fight. For control missions like Iraq, if you are an armored crewman, would you rather be in a tank that is fairly well protected against infantry portable weapons like mines and RPG's, or something that could be penetrated on any aspect by common man-portable weapons? The real need in Iraq is not less capable tanks, but more light infantry. On a final note, the T-34 was a damn fine tank. So good that it remained a viable medium tank many decades after WWII ended. I would even vote it as the best tank of WWII. But on the top 10 list? I think personally there is a top four list and then all others. 1. M1 and Challenger (it's a tie, too close to call, but both are combat proven, big plus) 3. Leopard II (on paper it may be better than M1/Challenger, but no operational experience) 4. Russian T-90 (Based on T-72 design, good gun, good FC, quality is not up to US/UK standards, armor somewhat lacking, gun range is poor) LeClerc would make my list if it was to ever become an operational tank. All other tanks I am aware of are just not in the same category of capability (I'm sure Merkava fans will yell at me, oh well) as these four or are paper tigers (I'm sure French guys will yell at me, oh well), or they have no operational experience to provide a basis of comparison (Chinese/Japanese tanks are a good example of this).