Saudi Arabia wants even more German MBTs

[Skybird]

Syrian army's tanks:

almost half of those 5000 tanks are T-55s. Around 1000 are T-62 and around 1700 are T-72s, the first export model with several weakened features like thinner armour (T-72M). Roughly one quarter of their tanks is mothballed.

Iranian army:

a wild mix of American, British, Russian, Northkorean and Chinese tanks from the 50s, 60s and 70s and 80s. There is no modern tank in their inventory, as far as I know, although they have changed some Chieftains according to their own developement.

In open field battles, both armies do lack the MBTs that could stand against modern Western tanks. They are not only old, but also for the most have no thermals, which is a suicidal handicap. The ammunition is inferior as well, old rounds of overaged design. The tanks are thin-skinned by today's standards.

In other words, what they have is an impressive trek of rolling coffins, from a Western POV.

The Saudis maintain a tank fleet of around 1100 MBTs, amongst them 370 M1A2s, 460 Pattons, and over 300 AMX-30. A wish for 600-800 Leo-2s indicates they want to replace their aging M-60s and AMX on a 1:1 basis.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Syrian army's tanks:

almost half of those 5000 tanks are T-55s. Around 1000 are T-62 and around 1700 are T-72s, the first export model with several weakened features like thinner armour (T-72M)

Iranian army:

a wild mix of American, British, Russian, Northkorean and Chinese tanks from the 50s, 60s and 70s and 80s. There is no modern tank in their inventory, as far as I know, although they have changed some Chieftains according to their own developement.

In open field battles, both armies do lack the MBTs that could stand against modern Western tanks. They are not only old, but also for the most have no thermals, which is a suicidal handicap. The ammunition is inferior as well, old rounds of overaged design. The tanks are thin-skinned by today's standards.

You put an illiterate tribal moron in a Abrams or Leopard and it might as well be a Sherman or a Pz IV.

The level of training in most Gulf armies is abysmal (except in the elite counter terrorism units). Both for the fighting and the logistical troops, those states contract out their support to the West.

Countries like Syria and Iran while having equipment that is a joke by our standards supports it by them selves and has experience using it.

We are talking about a country where one of the king's nephews ran their flagship aground and broke it's keel.

[Skybird]

You won't hear me objecting.

But I would not include all of their commanders in the ridiculing. Crew training standard maybe be low, but so it was with the Iraqis as well - during the war '91 some of their commanders nevertheless did their best to set up a fight during the 4-day battle at Basra. These commanders suffered not from lacking competence, but inferior equipment, American commanders reported. I would expect comparing competence - at least determination - from special commandoes and infantry commanders of the Iranian RG guards, who are quite fanatical.

Still, in Syrian and Iranian tank forces I put no faith, especially when they get confronted in the open desert, by modern Western MBTs. Precision, range, sights, ammo and penetration power, armour, speed - they have everything against themselves.

Too bad for them all that there are export limitations on SBP-PE.

[Foo86]

O_o

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

It's a bloody big country!

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Iranian Army: ~1800 MBTs
Syrian Army: ~4,950 MBTs
IDF: 1330 MBTs

Well as already explained...in the main we are comparing apples with oranges (IDF apart).

It still seems a large number...I'd have thought beefing up ground attack aircraft would have covered far larger areas of territory and obviously much quicker.