Which is the World's Best Tank??

[Pathfinder-X]

ok adsH you can choose not to believe my words, that's ok, but im not the only one that thinks the Al-Khalid is developed from Type-90 from China. Here is a few examples for you

"Pakistan's development of the MBT-2000 Al Khalid began in 1988, and in January 1990 an agreement was reached with China to jointly design, develop and manufacture system. The design is an upgrade from the original T902M and work had been going on at China's NORINCO for some years. Besides a low silhouette, it is considerably smaller as compared to other modern tanks, with a maximum weight of 46 tons. The Al Khalid is fitted with a smooth bore gun of 125mm which can also fire missiles."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/mbt-2000.htm

"Al-Khalid is basically a Chinese Type-90-II (China's standard export model), with imported Ukrainian engine (and a few other components), and the rest manufactured indigenously, with various Pakistani modifications and enhancements. It is a nimble tank with a lot of firepower, an autoloader, and a modern firecontrol system."

http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/06.al-khalid.html

even JDW and Sinodefence mentioned the development of Al-Khalid came from the Type-90. If you don't agree that's fine, there is always a different opinion and it's freedom of expression.

 

[adsH]

ok adsH you can choose not to believe my words, that's ok, but im not the only one that thinks the Al-Khalid is developed from Type-90 from China. Here is a few examples for you

"Pakistan's development of the MBT-2000 Al Khalid began in 1988, and in January 1990 an agreement was reached with China to jointly design, develop and manufacture system. The design is an upgrade from the original T902M and work had been going on at China's NORINCO for some years. Besides a low silhouette, it is considerably smaller as compared to other modern tanks, with a maximum weight of 46 tons. The Al Khalid is fitted with a smooth bore gun of 125mm which can also fire missiles."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/mbt-2000.htm

"Al-Khalid is basically a Chinese Type-90-II (China's standard export model), with imported Ukrainian engine (and a few other components), and the rest manufactured indigenously, with various Pakistani modifications and enhancements. It is a nimble tank with a lot of firepower, an autoloader, and a modern firecontrol system."

http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/06.al-khalid.html

even JDW and Sinodefence mentioned the development of Al-Khalid came from the Type-90. If you don't agree that's fine, there is always a different opinion and it's freedom of expression.

Absolutely freedom of expression is always good, but i think in my last post i never doubted what you had stated, that was that the Al Khalid traces its lineage back to the chinese T- 90 but i added to it by saying Ukrainians did tweaking to the armor, the over all tank design and it powerplant. the armor and the Engine is definitely ukrainan in design the rest is CHinese the fire suppression system and the rest of the design. but there i guess is a compromise between maneuverability and protection i think the Pakistanis chose to run rather then sit around and take hits. :lol


the globalsecurity.org is very unreliable they can't say one thing that seems to be actually new or at the least accurate the max spead of the tank is not 37 mph as they quoted it's more like 70mph i think !! the Ukrainian engine has some advantages !! there reasearch is half hearted and there ability to think is similar to a baby, oh no !! thats not fair !! Babies have potential !!! :lol

 

[gf0012-aust]

With a little bit of luck Tatra will pop into this thread. Just as an aside, the Chinese rated the Merkava as more heavily armoured on a frontal aspect. It's a deceptive indicator, as the Merkavas frontal aspect is enhanced by having the drive train in the front area. Hence it has armour plate and a drivetrain acting as a shell stopper. In actual fact it's armour rating is less than some of the nominated tanks. By some innovative designing it's able to maintain protection, reduce weight and be fairly mobile.

 

[adsH]

With a little bit of luck Tatra will pop into this thread. Just as an aside, the Chinese rated the Merkava as more heavily armoured on a frontal aspect. It's a deceptive indicator, as the Merkavas frontal aspect is enhanced by having the drive train in the front area. Hence it has armour plate and a drivetrain acting as a shell stopper. In actual fact it's armour rating is less than some of the nominated tanks. By some innovative designing it's able to maintain protection, reduce weight and be fairly mobile.

i can bet it must be a blend of new composit andmetal armour. Israelis do work hard when it comes to there technology development

 

[Proteus]

I think Adsh,you misunderstood me.

I did not say Alkhalids is as good as T-90 or it´s a upgrade T-72. Alkhalis is base on chinese Type 90(I think we can all agree on that),but it is not a upgrade type90(Ukrain has done a good job).
And as for our type99,I did not know any problem with it´s engine. And my friend,China has also a lot different climate change,so our tank is also designed to be use on very many different climates. I do not think we would also disign and produch a tank which use only on one kind of terrain. We are not that rich

Pathfinder:
You are right about the type99 lacks most the protection features of western tank. Our tank R&D is still mostly base on Russian tank disign thinking. I think our new explosive reactive amour well help a lot. I don´t know did you saw the New pic.about Type99(G). I think the new extra ERA well help alot when Type99 fighting the M1A2,on taiwan most likely. ROC is buying M1A2 from US,which well be a bad news for us,because now we need to get our Type99 on the shore taiwan(befor M1A2,our type 88c would be suffice to fight any ROC tank there was).

Ofcourse,there is also a lot chinese which wonder why our R&D people build Type99 turret like the T-72,which has been show in the "Desert storm" that is has very bad habit blown off. As you say there is a gap between the turret and the hull,also the the 125mm cannon automatic londing system is direct under the turret,which those ammo is not very well protected. But as we can get our hand on any western tank,we can´s learn from them...

About Arjun,I did not understand. You say Indiand did not gave up on Arjun,but you also say "Arjun gave them many experiences",which can be understud as that the Arjun is a TEST subject,which is base to build the new Arjun mk2? Which mean the Arjun most likely well not enter production?

 

[Pathfinder-X]

I think Adsh,you misunderstood me.

I did not say Alkhalids is as good as T-90 or it´s a upgrade T-72. Alkhalis is base on chinese Type 90(I think we can all agree on that),but it is not a upgrade type90(Ukrain has done a good job).
And as for our type99,I did not know any problem with it´s engine. And my friend,China has also a lot different climate change,so our tank is also designed to be use on very many different climates. I do not think we would also disign and produch a tank which use only on one kind of terrain. We are not that rich

Pathfinder:
You are right about the type99 lacks most the protection features of western tank. Our tank R&D is still mostly base on Russian tank disign thinking. I think our new explosive reactive amour well help a lot. I don´t know did you saw the New pic.about Type99(G). I think the new extra ERA well help alot when Type99 fighting the M1A2,on taiwan most likely. ROC is buying M1A2 from US,which well be a bad news for us,because now we need to get our Type99 on the shore taiwan(befor M1A2,our type 88c would be suffice to fight any ROC tank there was).

Ofcourse,there is also a lot chinese which wonder why our R&D people build Type99 turret like the T-72,which has been show in the "Desert storm" that is has very bad habit blown off. As you say there is a gap between the turret and the hull,also the the 125mm cannon automatic londing system is direct under the turret,which those ammo is not very well protected. But as we can get our hand on any western tank,we can´s learn from them...

About Arjun,I did not understand. You say Indiand did not gave up on Arjun,but you also say "Arjun gave them many experiences",which can be understud as that the Arjun is a TEST subject,which is base to build the new Arjun mk2? Which mean the Arjun most likely well not enter production?

Reactive armor is only effective on HEAT warheads, not armor piercing round fired from tank gun. However i saw some additional armor installed on Type 99, which should be the similar armor the isrealis fit on their Merkava MK3.

Type 88C or Type 96 will do fine in taiwan, as it is at least one generation ahead of any ROC tank in their current inventory. The M1A1 that will be sold to taiwan will not have depleted uranium armor, instead it will be fitted with composite ones. Also the gun will not be as powerful as the one currently installed on M1A1 in U.S army. So that will seriously compromise the tank's capability. Type 88C should be able to overcome it with greater number or stay about 3 to 4km of M1A1 and engage it with ATGM(which is hard to do considering taiwan's terrain)

the original Arjun prototypes did not meet indian army expectations, so indian engineers decided to upgrade it. The Arjun itself won't be coming into full production, but Arjun MK2 will. Remember nobody can succeed without bumping into some walls, the chinese didn't succeed on the Type-90, but they got it right on the Type-99. i've heard the Arjun MK2 receive some engine upgrades, enhanced armor and a deadlier main gun to suit Inidan army's needs.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Anyone want to know what the world's best tank is? Here it is:

Forecast International Re-evaluates Main Battle Tank Market


(Source: Forecast International; issued June 14, 2004)


NEWTOWN, Conn. --- In light of the global war on terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Forecast International Weapons Group has re-evaluated its annual ranking of the world’s best main battle tanks.

With an unmatched combat record in Operation Desert Storm (1991) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003-present), the M1A1 Abrams by General Dynamics Land Systems Division has clearly proven itself to be the premier main battle tank in service today. Based on its combat debut with the U.S. 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the M1A2 SEP (System Enhancement Package) Abrams now sets the international standard for main battle tank performance.

“With the demands of the global war on terror, we no longer have the luxury of evaluating weapons systems solely on their performance in the safe confines of a training environment,†said Dean Lockwood, author of the Forecast International rankings. “For man and machine alike, combat has a way of revealing previously unknown strengths and weaknesses,†Lockwood said.

When viewed through the prism of actual combat performance, the annual main battle tank ranking takes on a radically different character from years past. The Israel Ordnance Corps Merkava Mark IV moves up to second place in the Forecast International ranking. Although generally considered to be outside the mainstream of international tank development, the Merkava series is uniquely suited for the demands of the Israeli security environment. Like the M1A1 Abrams, the Merkava can boast a proven combat record.

Japan’s Type 90, by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, maintains its third-place position on the Forecast International list. Drawing heavily on German Leopard 2 technology, the Type 90 is arguably the most technologically advanced main battle tank in service today. However, the Type 90 suffers from being untried in combat. As such, its performance remains essentially theoretical. For the same reason, the Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A6 falls to fourth place. The oft-praised advanced features of the Leopard 2 and the integration of the Rh 120/55 main armament simply cannot compensate for the fact that the Leopard 2A6 remains untested in the crucible of combat.

Fifth place on the Forecast International ranking belongs to the British Challenger 2 by Vickers Defence Systems Division. Like the Abrams, the Challenger 2 has earned a solid combat record during Operation Iraqi Freedom. In comparison with the other tanks on this list, however, the Challenger 2 suffers from the lack of NATO-standard ordnance. Should the U.K. Ministry of Defence adopt the NATO-standard 120mm Rh 120 ordnance as part of the Challenger Lethality Improvement Program (CLIP), the Challenger 2 will likely take over second place on this list.

Forecast International, Inc., is a leading provider of Market Intelligence and Analysis in the areas of aerospace, defense, power systems and military electronics. Based in Newtown, CT, USA, Forecast International specializes in long-range industry forecasts and market presentations, including regular 10-year forecasts. Its products are utilized by strategic planners, marketing professionals, military organizations, and governments worldwide.


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cg....1082089861.QH9hhcOa9dUAAAaJKqU&modele=jdc_34

 

[adsH]

hey no offence aussie but i find this so called impartial-analysis group abit partial, they are obviously are sticking more importance on the M1A2 because alot of the Armies are in the process of Upgrading there equipment, it would benefit the US sales. if you look at a M1A2 in battle it has never operated as a loner, it always has a heap of Tanks in a batle group (which is perfectly normal for a regiment) but then it also has an enormous Air support it has other sort of Battle Support available to it, it has some of the best trained and experienced Soldier operating the equipment so its not so fair to just claim it as number one just because it has survived through two wars with less of them being destroyed.

 

[Aussie Digger]

There is not a lot of info in that article, but the analysis group seems to be reasonable respected. If they came and out and publicly supported a particular platform, I can see no reason why they wouldn't have the data to back up their claims. AS they said, claims about a tanks capability are all well and good in relation to paper statistics, but battlefield experience is the only way to tell how good a piece of equipment really is. The M1A1 series has demonstrated it's capability in combat time and time again, no other tank (with the exception of the Challenger, which I thought was a bit hard done by) can boast this level of experience and success. This success has come through tank on tank battles and repeatedly surviving anti-armour weapons hits. What else can you judge a tank by?

 

[gf0012-aust]

hey no offence aussie but i find this so called impartial-analysis group abit partial, they are obviously are sticking more importance on the M1A2 because alot of the Armies are in the process of Upgrading there equipment, it would benefit the US sales. if you look at a M1A2 in battle it has never operated as a loner, it always has a heap of Tanks in a batle group (which is perfectly normal for a regiment) but then it also has an enormous Air support it has other sort of Battle Support available to it, it has some of the best trained and experienced Soldier operating the equipment so its not so fair to just claim it as number one just because it has survived through two wars with less of them being destroyed.

Absolutely incorrect. The opening stages of Kuwait was a pure MBT meeting engagement. The battlefield was sandstormed in, no aircraft were flyable. The first major MBT only battle since Kursk was a meeting engagement of tanks only.

In fact all of the meeting engagements in Kuwait and Iraq were MBT only events. Iraqi tanks were molested in the open by CAS - but not in the MBT events where US and/or british Tanks were present..

 

[adsH]

There is not a lot of info in that article, but the analysis group seems to be reasonable respected. If they came and out and publicly supported a particular platform, I can see no reason why they wouldn't have the data to back up their claims. AS they said, claims about a tanks capability are all well and good in relation to paper statistics, but battlefield experience is the only way to tell how good a piece of equipment really is. The M1A1 series has demonstrated it's capability in combat time and time again, no other tank (with the exception of the Challenger, which I thought was a bit hard done by) can boast this level of experience and success. This success has come through tank on tank battles and repeatedly surviving anti-armour weapons hits. What else can you judge a tank by?

quiet an acceptable argument. but has any one factored inn the Quality of training of the soldiers operating such weapons such as teh M1A2,and what kind of trained soldiers they were fighting against and what kind of weapons they were fighting against. i guess they are right, my views wouldn't carry much weight in-front of there view.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think they just looked at the merits of the individual tanks and their respective performances.

 

[lalith prasad]

arjun mk2 is to have a new engine rated at 1500hp engine .there are reports that it is being developed by russia ,an active defence system being developed by israel for india.
a new nbc protection system being developed by bel,new ammo being jointly developed with russia,an armour being jointly developed with israelclaimed to be much more effective than the existing armour and marginally lighter.
Its gun system is to be retained as it is considered to be excellent by the indian army.however the most potent factor would be the lahat missile .developed by israel this missile has already been successfully tested on the mk1.according to israeyat .com it will have a range of 8kms against tanks and upto 10kms against helicopters and can be fired from tanks,rpv's and helicopters.the ultimate aim is to reduce mk2's wt to 56 tons.
the 120 mk1's will be used for bhim chasis which is preferred by the indian army it has combat weight of 56.5 tons.it is a 155mm sph being developed by sa for india.

 

[Proteus]

M1A2 is the best(of those MBT which has see combat) just because it has been in real combat. So,the poll sould be which the tank that has been in actul combat is the bast. And Which tank that do´s not have actul combat is the bast. Most tank on the poll has no been in a actul combat, Leclerc,Leopard 2(A4/A5),Al-khalid,T90,type99 and Arjun(mk1). Just comparison the tech info of a tank can´t see the "real" might of the tank.

Ofcourse as Adsh has alrealy said The Quality of training is very important,and the moral of the fighting men and women is also very improtant. If you put Iraq´s army men(back then) in the M1A2 and US in the T-72,the result of the first Desert storm well be the sama. If no body want to fight then how can they win....

 

[turin]

The Leclerc has seen combat in Desert Storm, hasnt it? Yet I dont know about the experiences.

On most forums I have been around there is such a thread about "the best tank". While sometimes this is just resulting in flame wars, most times the result is a "Abrams vs. Leopard 2", with the Abrams supporters saying the M1 has seen combat while the Leo did not (yet) and the Leo supporters saying, that the Leo has won every competition between the two.

As long as these are the frontlines, there will be no solution IMO. And of course it misses other factors as the training of the crews (while I am quite sure that Germans and Americans are on the same level minus german combat experience, this might not be true for other potential users of the systems).

Also there is the environment the tank was designed to fight in. A point that sets the Merkava completely apart from the US and german tank and makes him difficult to compare. I guess, for fighting in urban areas this one might be the best.
So Proteus already makes the point in his post.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Leclerc has seen combat in Desert Storm, hasnt it? Yet I dont know about the experiences.

I've just been corrected by one of my military peers that the last French Armour deployment was with AMX-30's. No shots fired in anger in an MBT engegement.

The UAE has had significant problems with their Leclercs. The auto loader has been systemically failing. They are being courted by the French to buy more units but are saying no. Apparently the engines are not performing as expected as well. The French are keen to get further units out as the GIAT line does look as though it's at risk of closure.

--- MENL ----

QATAR MULLS FRENCH LECLERC TANK OFFER


ABU DHABI [MENL] -- Qatar has been reviewing an offer from France to sell its Leclerc-2 main battle tank to the Gulf emirate.

Gulf defense sources said the French Defense Ministry has relayed a formal proposal to sell the Leclerc to Doha as part of a requirement by its military to bolster the ground forces. The Leclerc package would also contain maintenance and training.

The French offer calls for the sale of 50 Leclerc-2 tanks to Qatar's military, the sources said. They said the Defense Ministry has offered the tanks at below the list price in an effort to sustain the ailing state-owned manufacturer, Giat.

So far, France has had little success in selling the Leclerc. The United Arab Emirates purchased the Leclerc in a $2 billion sale that was plagued by complaints of breakdowns. Saudi Arabia has refused a French offer of the Leclerc-2.

--- end ---

 

[gf0012-aust]

Someone was querying the fact of US tanks being assisted by CAS. I've got permission from a Master Gunner who led the largest tank engagement since Kursk to post this here: (btw, mike_golf is the callsign for this master gunner)

From mike_golf
Hey gf0012, here's a summary for you.

The first 36 hours, or so, of the ground war, we made a sweeping movement across the desert to the south east of Nasiriyah. Once there, the 24th ID assaulted objectives in order to secure Talil and Jalibah airfields. My brigade assaulted Jalibah.

We went into attack positions (last covered and concealed position before enemy contact) and prepped for the attack - refuel, rearm, sleep, last minute frag orders, etc. We conducted a classic hasty attack drill, with part of the brigade as the base of fire, part flanking the objective and rolling across it and the remainder in reserve, each element was approximately a battalion in strength. Shortly before this first attack a sand storm blew up and reduced visibility to 500 meters with thermals. CAS couldn't fly, nor attack helicopters. Indirect fire had to go in on pre-plotted coordinates without direct observation. The first tank I engaged I couldn't see in thermals. The crew had kept their tank cold and it was pretty close to the background temp. My driver was yelling about a "Tank, front" that my gunner and I couldn't see. Once I stuck my head out of the hatch (rookie move there, the commander getting heads down on the sights) I saw it, smacked my gunner and had him go to clear daylight sights. We acquired the tank at a range of 450 meters. He was traversing his turret as we got our round off. Definitely a manned tank, fighting back, not taken out by CAS. We destroyed a battalion of tanks at Jalibah, and about a brigade of dismounted infantry. It was all close range fighting, infantry all over the place. We didn't have CAS or helicopters and our artillery couldn't really help because we were intermingled with the bad guys.

The next engagement was a meeting engagement on Highway 8 in the middle of the night. As we were preparing to cross the highway we came under fire from tanks moving to our north. There was no time to call for CAS. The CO did call artillery, but by the time the artillery was firing we had already destroyed the remnants of a tank battalion.

The last big fight I was in was the Rumaylah Oil Fields after the cease fire. All tank to tank again.

In fact, during the whole ground war I never saw CAS used, we fought all our engagements the old fashioned way, tank to tank, with artillery support. My notebook, which I pulled out to write this, indicate that my tank and I engaged and destroyed 13 tanks, 5 BMP's, and 6 wheeled vehicles with the main gun, if I counted that up right. All of which were manned and most of which were trying to engage us.

Hope that helps.

 

[mysterious]

The Leclerc has seen combat in Desert Storm, hasnt it? Yet I dont know about the experiences.

I've just been corrected by one of my military peers that the last French Armour deployment was with AMX-30's. No shots fired in anger in an MBT engegement.

The UAE has had significant problems with their Leclercs. The auto loader has been systemically failing. They are being courted by the French to buy more units but are saying no. Apparently the engines are not performing as expected as well. The French are keen to get further units out as the GIAT line does look as though it's at risk of closure.

--- MENL ----

QATAR MULLS FRENCH LECLERC TANK OFFER


ABU DHABI [MENL] -- Qatar has been reviewing an offer from France to sell its Leclerc-2 main battle tank to the Gulf emirate.

Gulf defense sources said the French Defense Ministry has relayed a formal proposal to sell the Leclerc to Doha as part of a requirement by its military to bolster the ground forces. The Leclerc package would also contain maintenance and training.

The French offer calls for the sale of 50 Leclerc-2 tanks to Qatar's military, the sources said. They said the Defense Ministry has offered the tanks at below the list price in an effort to sustain the ailing state-owned manufacturer, Giat.

So far, France has had little success in selling the Leclerc. The United Arab Emirates purchased the Leclerc in a $2 billion sale that was plagued by complaints of breakdowns. Saudi Arabia has refused a French offer of the Leclerc-2.

--- end ---

Looks to me like, all of these Middle-Eastern countries are looking towards Pakistan for Al-Khalids if not anything else. Saudi Arabia has already said it would buy Al-Khalids once it cuts down its budget deficit. :smokingc:

 

[adsH]

Someone was querying the fact of US tanks being assisted by CAS. I've got permission from a Master Gunner who led the largest tank engagement since Kursk to post this here: (btw, mike_golf is the callsign for this master gunner)

From mike_golf
Hey gf0012, here's a summary for you.

The first 36 hours, or so, of the ground war, we made a sweeping movement across the desert to the south east of Nasiriyah. Once there, the 24th ID assaulted objectives in order to secure Talil and Jalibah airfields. My brigade assaulted Jalibah.

We went into attack positions (last covered and concealed position before enemy contact) and prepped for the attack - refuel, rearm, sleep, last minute frag orders, etc. We conducted a classic hasty attack drill, with part of the brigade as the base of fire, part flanking the objective and rolling across it and the remainder in reserve, each element was approximately a battalion in strength. Shortly before this first attack a sand storm blew up and reduced visibility to 500 meters with thermals. CAS couldn't fly, nor attack helicopters. Indirect fire had to go in on pre-plotted coordinates without direct observation. The first tank I engaged I couldn't see in thermals. The crew had kept their tank cold and it was pretty close to the background temp. My driver was yelling about a "Tank, front" that my gunner and I couldn't see. Once I stuck my head out of the hatch (rookie move there, the commander getting heads down on the sights) I saw it, smacked my gunner and had him go to clear daylight sights. We acquired the tank at a range of 450 meters. He was traversing his turret as we got our round off. Definitely a manned tank, fighting back, not taken out by CAS. We destroyed a battalion of tanks at Jalibah, and about a brigade of dismounted infantry. It was all close range fighting, infantry all over the place. We didn't have CAS or helicopters and our artillery couldn't really help because we were intermingled with the bad guys.

The next engagement was a meeting engagement on Highway 8 in the middle of the night. As we were preparing to cross the highway we came under fire from tanks moving to our north. There was no time to call for CAS. The CO did call artillery, but by the time the artillery was firing we had already destroyed the remnants of a tank battalion.

The last big fight I was in was the Rumaylah Oil Fields after the cease fire. All tank to tank again.

In fact, during the whole ground war I never saw CAS used, we fought all our engagements the old fashioned way, tank to tank, with artillery support. My notebook, which I pulled out to write this, indicate that my tank and I engaged and destroyed 13 tanks, 5 BMP's, and 6 wheeled vehicles with the main gun, if I counted that up right. All of which were manned and most of which were trying to engage us.

Hope that helps.

Thnx for sharing that GF and thnx alot Mike (you did a good job out there), gf from his account he seamed like a pro well trained confident and object orientated, obviously he is well trained, i would expect him to fight like he did and score close to what kills he got even if he was in a T 72, i know the armor of the M1A2 is great its an all rounded lethal tank and its higtech. but this Mike, this soldier is a highly trained Person he could of managed a good kill rate of just about any reasonable platform. Training gave him confidence, i can't say that for the Saudi troops !! they have M1A2. i think.

 

[gf0012-aust]

And a final update from mike_golf

You should be able to find the exact numbers, but I believe that it was roughly 3500 MBT's (coalition and Iraqi's), and total of about 7500 armored vehicles including MBT's. This was in the Kuwait/Iraq theater of operations overall. I think the biggest single, coordinated tank battle was when VII Corps committed to a deliberate attack on the Republican Guard after 73 Easting. That would mean about 800 US MBT's and probably nearly 1000 Iraqi MBT's, roughly. IIRC, that battle lasted about 24 hours before the RG was broken and retreating. They retreated directly into the 24th and we mauled the remnants of the Tawalkana, Medina and Hammurabi divisions.

Everything I know is that this was the largest armored battle fought since Kursk.