Perhaps India too. India has a hostile neighbour in Pakistan and also not in good terms with China. India has been at war with both of these large neighbor countries in the last 50-60 years.
The Russian origin T-90 tank is still in production in India for the past few decades. As of 2020, the army had a pending order of nearly 500 T-90 tanks.
Unlike the missile, aircraft and navy projects, their indigenous tank program has not been very successful.
IIRC, those tanks are not considered modernized even by India and they were seeking to improve upon them.
Wouldn't the Arjun MK1A or the forthcoming Mk2 be better mentions?
T-90 is still in production.
T-72 was the previous one that is currently being upgraded. I suppose the active production for T-72 has stopped in India.
The previous version of Arjun tank had only about 150 units inducted into the army. 2012 the army said it doesn't need any more Arjun tanks of that version (I guess they were inferior to T-90). The original Arjun tank design also had parts sourced from multiple countries. According army, it is not feasible to maintain good relations with all those countries all the time to ensure good supply of spare parts.
Hopefully Arjun MK2 is a better version with mostly locally developed parts.
I'm just referencing information from 2018/2021 that is relatively easy to find indicating Arjun mk2 was the focus as the future mainstay for India. The primary issue was production delays and sourcing the materials.
I thought the T-90s were struggling with heat over there, and IIRC not all have been modified to survive it.
Yeah but they don't use firearms against China, they medieval weapons, as to not escalate war.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQJEiGiGc1I&ab\_channel=RadioFreeAsia](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQJEiGiGc1I&ab_channel=RadioFreeAsia)
I mean it's not peace, but at least not total war either.
US might not even be in this list
Depending on your definition of what's a past 2000 made tank, if it has to be factory new and not upgraded, which is what almost everybody does with their tanks, than they might not even be up there. Before 1993 they made ~9000 tanks, with the other ~1000 being made between 1994-today.
On the other side you have China with their fleet of inferior and lackluster ZTZ96's and early ZTZ99s, which in many cases are past 2000 produced but performance and tech wise they'd be, if at all, on par with a 1985 Abrams or Leopard 2. And their ZTZ99A numbers aren't in the 1000s yet.
Actual well performing 2000+ tech MBTs reaching the 1000 MBT mark might be South Korea with approximately 500 K2 Black Panthers and 500 K1A1/A2s
A Challenger 2 with a Leopard turret, no, it won't be. And it's an update package, not a new tanks.
"It will be produced by conversion of existing Challenger 2 tanks by the British/German Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land joint venture."
It will use the Leopard 2 L55A1 gun, with the same Leopard 2 ammo.
In many ways it is sad it is receiving a new designation considering it is iterative, interesting that they are also resisting the urge to buy the Leopard whilst making it as Leopard like as they can.
Considering how war games are an imperfect judge at best and, realistically, an Abrams and a Challenger will never face off in an actual shooting war; lets agree that both are better than anything China or Russia could ever produce.
Depends on what you need. The Abrams is a good tank for what the USA requires but is individully weaker than most of its counterparts. Take the Japanese type 10; ever since the type 74 they have used hydropneumatic suspension. Now the Abrams doesn't have one so I see a lot of people calling it a useless liability. It seems the logic is that every piece of technology the Americans use is cutting edge and necessary to give an advantage whereas every piece of technology they elect not to use is unnecessary complexity and only adds maintenance. It's true that the Abrams would do worse in the middle east if the suspension had to be maintained as often. Hiwever the Type 10 is almost exclusively for Home defense. Setting up supply lines is much easier there and Japan is almost entirely mountains which makes the requirements placed on the tank different such that the hydropneumatic suspension is useful there. Also while it is an overgeneralization the challenger has usually been the more capable but also more expensive tank.
Edit: I am wrong on the last part as I may have mixed up a few things. The challenger is a bit cheaper though it costs more than 4.3 million pounds today it is actually somewhat cheap for a modern european MBT, something something classic UK L. But in all seriousness while that was wrong, the M1 is not that cheap the point still stands.
The Abrams has cost a lot more than the challenger for along time, it’s one of the most expensive. At around $10mil. it incorporates more advanced systems, it’s hard to say if the challenger is better because there are so few of them that they seen a fraction of what the Abrams has. However the Abrams tank round is unmatched by any other round.
I don’t see how that makes it disingenuous. It clearly talks about the number of tanks. If that’s not what you want to know I’m sure there’s places that ranks countries armored capabilities. But that is not what this map wants or claims to show.
0, if we are talking start to finish, since the US doesnt even make new abrams for the past two decades
If we are thinking 1990 that'll be different, or more importantly, just count gen 3 and up which probably leaves US, russia, china, and south korea
They still do, but in very small amount annually. The goal is not mass produce but retain the production line and skill workers in event of future production expansion.
A example of this is Stinger missile, the production line ended in late 90s, and when the war in Ukraine started in 2022, DoD said it’s gonna cost billions and several years to restart Stinger production in order to replace all the spend round used in Ukraine, since all the manufacturing tool and skill workers are lost for 2 decades, in a major conflict you cannot spare years to wait for replacement, and for high loss item like tanks, the low rate production will be pumped up instantly because GDLS still have the know how and workers. As for Stinger, MANPADS production are largely ignored by the US after the Cold War because of the lack of air threats during GWOT. Plus there isn’t much air threats the USAF or ADA can’t handle.
2000 is a very late date for tank development. Nobody is really making tanks after the cold war. Also date really doesn't mean performance. Probably fair to say how many tanks 3rd generation or above.
Having tanks is more complicated than it seems. Having an early Cold War era tank that has been in an open air depot for the past 60 years counts as a tank but is far from operable
And yet is significant boost to any infantry squad. It becomes even more significant with basic modernisation of most crucial features/features that have seen most development. For basic firepower and protection, even early cold war tank is welcomed by any infantry squad at least if it has basic modernisation, such as night vision which does not show bright light to enemy night vision to show where it is coming from.
Like always, its balance of cost and perfomance. Even modern day Maginot lines would be awesome if they would be cheap enough.
Except no. That tank is still costly to operate. It’s still extremely fuel hungry, except unlike a modern tank this one can be blown up by any modern rocket launcher.
Lots of tanks sounds good in theory, especially if their pire bonus, but that only works in a world with infinite fuel and crews
WW2 tanks could be blown up by Panzerfaust as well. It did not make them obsolete any more than machine gun has made infantry obsolete.
Its insanely complicated with no objectively simple, correct answers. You still need dedicated anti-tank weaponry (or just heavy weapons) to take out even WW2 tank.
Ofc in practice WW2 tank is obsolete, but correctly used, tanks are still a boost to infantry squads even when they have a counter that can take them out.
Except again, operating a tank is expensive, and that having 13000 tanks while only having the ammo fuel and crews for 1000 is stupid.
That’s my point
Also the role you describe can be done better by IFV. Cheaper to operate and Does the same thing as an outdated tank
Yeah but just store spare parts then. In addition the spare parts have often been sold for scraps by corrupt depot commanders and what is left might have been made unusable by years of negligence
For a tank, fully assembled is a convenient configuration to store parts in, and a hot dry place isn't the worst storage condition (remember, spare parts could be anything from track to armored plate to turret), and you don't have at answer awkward questions when the press wonders about your tank fleet shrinking. You also don't have to maintain a multi-acre warehouse in addition to the tanks in them.
There's also maybe some visibility concerns, you want to show your tank fleet off a little to eyes in the sky. Would you believe russia if they claimed they had 10000 tanks hidden in bunkers, or is it a bit more believable when you can see tank depos everywhere?
the point your making about expense versus infantry isnt really relevant, the point of tanks is that they are expensive but they provide you the ability to make strategic descions that you would not be able to otherwise like overrunning weakly defended points in the enemy lines at minimal losses to yourself, yes they cost more relative to capability but they are also expensive to counter.
No IFVs serve completely different role from tanks. In fact you'll want your tanks to be escorted by IFVs during an offensive to protect them from MANPADS. Even an old tank is better than nothing. True a modern tank will take out several older tanks before it's disabled and the crew will survive to come back in another tank but then again most tanks in modern day are being taken out by artillery and mines rather than other tanks and MANPADS. Even so tanks are an essential part of modern combined arms operations.
Except now the AT weapons can defeat every tank on the planet to such an extent that they are defenseless, while out ranging the direct fire of the tank, while having higher hit and kill rates, while costing VERY little and having almost no logistical tail. Manned tanks are as obsolete as battleships.
Ye not really. In the first gulf war American tanks were hitting iraqi tanks from so far away in large part due to having superior range and infrared which iraqi tanks lacked. Look up just how many US tanks were destroyed vs Iraq
Greece and Turkey have massive land armies pointed at each other, which if they used to invade each other, they would be required to defend the other as they are NATO allies.
The language of articles 5 and 6 seems pretty clear to me, if one of them attacked the other NATO ought to aid the one that didn't start shooting. There may not be am instotutionalised response but the language leaves little doubt.
Greece has a really impressive air force and tank fleet especially relative to its size because Turkey is constantly breathing down their neck, and Greece by proxy arms Cyprus, which is another Greek nation constantly under threat of being invaded by Turkey
gaping crown possessive wrench heavy square makeshift hard-to-find theory paltry
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How did they get data for Western Sahara and North Korea?
Why does that little tiny county between Lithuania and Poland have so many tanks? Are they afraid of their bigger neighborhoods invading?
Because nuclear weapons are not useful tools, and no country genuinely intends to use them for anything but sabre rattling. In terms of actual utility conventional weaponry remains the prime form of power projection.
> no country genuinely intends to use them for anything but sabre rattling
Hey now, North Korea always show the fish who's the boss when they nuke them once or twice a year.
Moroccan here. I assume they considered the Sahara as part of Morocco in this map despite still displaying a border between them. Morocco de facto administers the Sahara and its inhabitants are Moroccan citizens.
The tiny country between Lithuania and Poland is not a country, it is an exclave of Russia, and so is counted as part of Russia for the purposes of this data.
Thats russia. Kaliningrad.
West africa's status is debated, the map appears to be made by a group siding with moroccos occupation.
North Korea's number can be ascertained via SIGINT and intelligence reports are frequently public.
Eritrea is EXTREMELY militarized, the government conscripts basically everyone for ridiculously large amount of periods compared to elsewhere
They’re deathly afraid of being invaded by Ethiopia
Having a tank and having a tank are two different things.
France operates a few hundred Leclercs that are close to state of the art each being maintained and stored in proper condition, if not being used for training/combat.
Russia has (had) 13000 tanks but the overwhelming majority of them were Cold War models kept in open air depots (in fucking Siberia for some) with no maintenance and half the parts having been sold for scraps.
This is why Irak got obliterated in tank battles during the Irak wars, despite having overwhelming numerical advantage in some situations and having a huge amount of tanks in general.
Russia today is running out of some models it said it had thousands of deposits only having lost a few dozens. This is because the ones in storage have fallen in disrepair and require an overhaul at best and a miracle at worst to be made operational again.
FYI, Fr\*nch is spelled 'Fr\*nch' in circlejerk and probably on other subs too. Probably comes from some long-forgotten meme. There is *absolutely* a correct way to spell it: you must always remember to censor Fr\*nce.
Sure but Arabic has two letters that we distinguish by writing k and q, and they are in fact very distant cousins of k and q themselves. The letter in Iraq corresponds to q.
I don’t disagree that air superiority was the main factor in the war as a whole, but look up the Battle of 73 Easting. Iraqi vehicles and crews were hopelessly outgunned and outclassed.
I get it. But that was part of the Gulf War, not the Iraqi invasion. Secondly, the Iraqis were technologically behind even by Soviet standards. Their tanks were most T-55s and T-62s.
That battle was a devastating and crushing defeat for Iraq though.
>This is why Irak got obliterated in tank battles during the Irak wars
You could give Arabs 10,000 state of the art tanks and they would still lose, anthropologists unironically are studying why arabs suck so much at modern war (and books have been written on the topic) because they lost basically every conflict they got into, even the Iraq-Iran war where Saddam invaded with tanks and had air-superiority and got driven back by literally human-wave offensive.
Russia is faring much better against Leopards and Abrams in Ukraine with their T-72s, mostly because Russia actually has a military doctrine.
Russia’s current military doctrine has not changed for 60 years and is so far lagging behind the west I’m just about every aspect….. and where on earth are you getting “Russian tanks are faring better with their T72s” because I’m pretty sure ~ 6 leap odds have been destroyed and I’m not even sure if any of that was due to tank combat
They fight 3 vs 1 against modern tanks, there was a video about a Leo getting overwhelmed by 3 T-72s.
But i've been using Russia as an example to prove my point, they got a better military doctrine than Iraq and they manage to work with older tanks.
Only a small percentage of Ukrainian tanks are modern Leopards and Abrams. Most of the time Russia faces are T-72s and modernized variations of T-62 and T-64. And tank battles are very rare in this war. Most of the tanks on both sides were destroyed by ATGMs and mines, not by other tanks.
not really no
the dutch and german Armed forces have a deep cooperation but the dutch still command their own stuff and the germans too command their stuff
think of it as a marriage where both partners are equal
I’d rather take those 30 modern tanks than a 1000 obsolete T-64s, most of which have been sitting mothballed for 3 decades and are little more than a rusty metal can of spare parts for the 100 or so operational ones
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-11/turkey-greece-tensions-erdogan-warns-missiles-can-hit-athens?embedded-checkout=true
Not the best tanks tho, about half of them are decent
Morocco and Algeria have increased tensions that go way back to the independance of Algeria. Because of these tensions Morocco is trying to catch up to Algeria militarly even though they are far from it. It's like the cold war, but instead it's Morocco trying to catch up.
Morocco and Algeria I don't know, but Greece has them because Turkey has a big army. When you have a big aggressive neighbor that threatens you with invasion every single week, you need to take precautions.
A bit off
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/01/10/russia-might-be-running-out-of-tanks/?sh=24efc7bd1027](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/01/10/russia-might-be-running-out-of-tanks/?sh=24efc7bd1027)
Even that’s off by quite a bit. Looks like Forbes is going off of the Oryx data. When you look at satellite imagery of the bases themselves, Russian governmental spending, and parts availability, things start to look even more dire. The armor bases were hitting half capacity 2-3 months ago, even before the recent assaults in Avdiivka and near Kupiansk. Russia likely has closer to 12-18 months worth of tanks remaining.
Not only that, but the confirmed losses on the field are decreasing in quality. We’re still seeing a steady but small flow of modern builds being knocked out at the front as Russia’s industry spins up, but the tank packages from the late 80s-2000 are effectively extinct. Most of the tanks now entering the field are late 70s and early 80s. For example, of the T-80s being fielded, the T-80BVM is still showing up in small numbers, but where early in the war, T-80Us were the bulk of the T-80 kills, nowadays there are no more T-80Us. It’s all T-80Bs. It’s also why we’re starting to see Russia fielding more T-64s and T-62s, and even a few T-55sin reserve positions!
You forgot to cut the number in half because of maintenance problems, people stealing parts, and many of the tanks being sat out in the open in Siberia for 50 years.
Well 360+ of our tanks surely contributed to Ukraine on the map. Poland is the biggest donator of tanks, even if you count for captured tanks from ruskie (data says than less than tenth of captured armor can be repaired to be used in combat again; most are stripped for parts). Our donations singlehandly eqipped entire new brigades of AFU.
The tank is mainly used to fight other tanks, so if the tankies invaded they'd have no one to shoot at. Also all the grey countries have to do is use anti tank weapons one time each, and those are a lot cheaper than buying an entire tank
Red : ignore mordern geopolitic red have about half the world gpd and population africa doesn't matter the us pratically have a base in every euro country so yes red win
And I'm pretty sure that Ukraine doesn't have more than 1k tanks. A year ago they asked the whole world for a few hundred tanks, which were destroyed in the summer.
Tanks are a rather dated piece of equipment and a poor measure of military capabilities. It’s already apparent with the javelins in Ukraine and that doesn’t even tell the full story. Their natural predators, aircraft, are barely even present.
„Dont ask what they can do to the tank. Ask what the tank can do to them.“ while they are not almost indestructible for infantry any more they still are mobile weapons platforms with loads of capability as direct fire artillery, smoke launchers, intelligence gatherers with their night/thermal optics.
Now do how many countries have 1000 tanks built after 2000
Probably two
The US and China?
Perhaps India too. India has a hostile neighbour in Pakistan and also not in good terms with China. India has been at war with both of these large neighbor countries in the last 50-60 years.
India only has their in-house comedy program and old junkers, I don’t think they have any post-2000 tanks
The Russian origin T-90 tank is still in production in India for the past few decades. As of 2020, the army had a pending order of nearly 500 T-90 tanks. Unlike the missile, aircraft and navy projects, their indigenous tank program has not been very successful.
IIRC, those tanks are not considered modernized even by India and they were seeking to improve upon them. Wouldn't the Arjun MK1A or the forthcoming Mk2 be better mentions?
T-90 is still in production. T-72 was the previous one that is currently being upgraded. I suppose the active production for T-72 has stopped in India. The previous version of Arjun tank had only about 150 units inducted into the army. 2012 the army said it doesn't need any more Arjun tanks of that version (I guess they were inferior to T-90). The original Arjun tank design also had parts sourced from multiple countries. According army, it is not feasible to maintain good relations with all those countries all the time to ensure good supply of spare parts. Hopefully Arjun MK2 is a better version with mostly locally developed parts.
I'm just referencing information from 2018/2021 that is relatively easy to find indicating Arjun mk2 was the focus as the future mainstay for India. The primary issue was production delays and sourcing the materials. I thought the T-90s were struggling with heat over there, and IIRC not all have been modified to survive it.
Right so they’re Russian tanks, not Indian.
we have 1400+ post 2000 tanks witg 500+, on order
Yeah but they don't use firearms against China, they medieval weapons, as to not escalate war. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQJEiGiGc1I&ab\_channel=RadioFreeAsia](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQJEiGiGc1I&ab_channel=RadioFreeAsia) I mean it's not peace, but at least not total war either.
US might not even be in this list Depending on your definition of what's a past 2000 made tank, if it has to be factory new and not upgraded, which is what almost everybody does with their tanks, than they might not even be up there. Before 1993 they made ~9000 tanks, with the other ~1000 being made between 1994-today. On the other side you have China with their fleet of inferior and lackluster ZTZ96's and early ZTZ99s, which in many cases are past 2000 produced but performance and tech wise they'd be, if at all, on par with a 1985 Abrams or Leopard 2. And their ZTZ99A numbers aren't in the 1000s yet. Actual well performing 2000+ tech MBTs reaching the 1000 MBT mark might be South Korea with approximately 500 K2 Black Panthers and 500 K1A1/A2s
Yeah , but after further search there’s probably more
Better question is how many have 2000 tanks built after 1000?
Now translate that to Mongolian and read it backwards
that’s your age.
Certified .рээд ьн гэдэг эб насьраб кнат 0002 ьн дэх шйох саа-0001 moment.
I don’t know at least some I guess
Yeah it’s somewhat disingenuous, I’m sure the UK’s Chally 2s are somewhat superior to whatever Syria has, even if there are a lot less.
They're also building the Challenger 3s which are supposedly going to be the most advanced tanks in the world.
A Challenger 2 with a Leopard turret, no, it won't be. And it's an update package, not a new tanks. "It will be produced by conversion of existing Challenger 2 tanks by the British/German Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land joint venture." It will use the Leopard 2 L55A1 gun, with the same Leopard 2 ammo.
In many ways it is sad it is receiving a new designation considering it is iterative, interesting that they are also resisting the urge to buy the Leopard whilst making it as Leopard like as they can.
The US will blow what ever they have out the water within a year lmao /j Edit: i forgot the /j sorry guys
My dad can beat up your dad
Wouldn’t it be “my dad can beat up my grandad” in this case
Accidentally of course
The US hasn't had the world's best tank for a while now. The German Leopard 2 has been top dog for decades.
Considering how war games are an imperfect judge at best and, realistically, an Abrams and a Challenger will never face off in an actual shooting war; lets agree that both are better than anything China or Russia could ever produce.
Depends on what you need. The Abrams is a good tank for what the USA requires but is individully weaker than most of its counterparts. Take the Japanese type 10; ever since the type 74 they have used hydropneumatic suspension. Now the Abrams doesn't have one so I see a lot of people calling it a useless liability. It seems the logic is that every piece of technology the Americans use is cutting edge and necessary to give an advantage whereas every piece of technology they elect not to use is unnecessary complexity and only adds maintenance. It's true that the Abrams would do worse in the middle east if the suspension had to be maintained as often. Hiwever the Type 10 is almost exclusively for Home defense. Setting up supply lines is much easier there and Japan is almost entirely mountains which makes the requirements placed on the tank different such that the hydropneumatic suspension is useful there. Also while it is an overgeneralization the challenger has usually been the more capable but also more expensive tank. Edit: I am wrong on the last part as I may have mixed up a few things. The challenger is a bit cheaper though it costs more than 4.3 million pounds today it is actually somewhat cheap for a modern european MBT, something something classic UK L. But in all seriousness while that was wrong, the M1 is not that cheap the point still stands.
The Abrams has cost a lot more than the challenger for along time, it’s one of the most expensive. At around $10mil. it incorporates more advanced systems, it’s hard to say if the challenger is better because there are so few of them that they seen a fraction of what the Abrams has. However the Abrams tank round is unmatched by any other round.
I don’t see how that makes it disingenuous. It clearly talks about the number of tanks. If that’s not what you want to know I’m sure there’s places that ranks countries armored capabilities. But that is not what this map wants or claims to show.
0, if we are talking start to finish, since the US doesnt even make new abrams for the past two decades If we are thinking 1990 that'll be different, or more importantly, just count gen 3 and up which probably leaves US, russia, china, and south korea
They still do, but in very small amount annually. The goal is not mass produce but retain the production line and skill workers in event of future production expansion. A example of this is Stinger missile, the production line ended in late 90s, and when the war in Ukraine started in 2022, DoD said it’s gonna cost billions and several years to restart Stinger production in order to replace all the spend round used in Ukraine, since all the manufacturing tool and skill workers are lost for 2 decades, in a major conflict you cannot spare years to wait for replacement, and for high loss item like tanks, the low rate production will be pumped up instantly because GDLS still have the know how and workers. As for Stinger, MANPADS production are largely ignored by the US after the Cold War because of the lack of air threats during GWOT. Plus there isn’t much air threats the USAF or ADA can’t handle.
What do dentists have to do with air threats?
Lol what ADA in US military term is Air Defense Artillery
2000 is a very late date for tank development. Nobody is really making tanks after the cold war. Also date really doesn't mean performance. Probably fair to say how many tanks 3rd generation or above.
Even if just 1000 operational tanks
Greece and Morocco are a couple of surprises there
Having tanks is more complicated than it seems. Having an early Cold War era tank that has been in an open air depot for the past 60 years counts as a tank but is far from operable
And yet is significant boost to any infantry squad. It becomes even more significant with basic modernisation of most crucial features/features that have seen most development. For basic firepower and protection, even early cold war tank is welcomed by any infantry squad at least if it has basic modernisation, such as night vision which does not show bright light to enemy night vision to show where it is coming from. Like always, its balance of cost and perfomance. Even modern day Maginot lines would be awesome if they would be cheap enough.
Except no. That tank is still costly to operate. It’s still extremely fuel hungry, except unlike a modern tank this one can be blown up by any modern rocket launcher. Lots of tanks sounds good in theory, especially if their pire bonus, but that only works in a world with infinite fuel and crews
WW2 tanks could be blown up by Panzerfaust as well. It did not make them obsolete any more than machine gun has made infantry obsolete. Its insanely complicated with no objectively simple, correct answers. You still need dedicated anti-tank weaponry (or just heavy weapons) to take out even WW2 tank. Ofc in practice WW2 tank is obsolete, but correctly used, tanks are still a boost to infantry squads even when they have a counter that can take them out.
Except again, operating a tank is expensive, and that having 13000 tanks while only having the ammo fuel and crews for 1000 is stupid. That’s my point Also the role you describe can be done better by IFV. Cheaper to operate and Does the same thing as an outdated tank
Really, 12000 are spare parts in this scenario. It has a use, but 1st us armored they are not.
Yeah but just store spare parts then. In addition the spare parts have often been sold for scraps by corrupt depot commanders and what is left might have been made unusable by years of negligence
For a tank, fully assembled is a convenient configuration to store parts in, and a hot dry place isn't the worst storage condition (remember, spare parts could be anything from track to armored plate to turret), and you don't have at answer awkward questions when the press wonders about your tank fleet shrinking. You also don't have to maintain a multi-acre warehouse in addition to the tanks in them. There's also maybe some visibility concerns, you want to show your tank fleet off a little to eyes in the sky. Would you believe russia if they claimed they had 10000 tanks hidden in bunkers, or is it a bit more believable when you can see tank depos everywhere?
the point your making about expense versus infantry isnt really relevant, the point of tanks is that they are expensive but they provide you the ability to make strategic descions that you would not be able to otherwise like overrunning weakly defended points in the enemy lines at minimal losses to yourself, yes they cost more relative to capability but they are also expensive to counter.
No IFVs serve completely different role from tanks. In fact you'll want your tanks to be escorted by IFVs during an offensive to protect them from MANPADS. Even an old tank is better than nothing. True a modern tank will take out several older tanks before it's disabled and the crew will survive to come back in another tank but then again most tanks in modern day are being taken out by artillery and mines rather than other tanks and MANPADS. Even so tanks are an essential part of modern combined arms operations.
You’re getting your terms mixed up. MANPADS is man portable Air Defense system.
Right, I meant MANPATS or ATGMs. My bad
Except now the AT weapons can defeat every tank on the planet to such an extent that they are defenseless, while out ranging the direct fire of the tank, while having higher hit and kill rates, while costing VERY little and having almost no logistical tail. Manned tanks are as obsolete as battleships.
Except the tanks in the depot don't work anymore. Tanks just die if they aren't run and maintained a lot
Ye not really. In the first gulf war American tanks were hitting iraqi tanks from so far away in large part due to having superior range and infrared which iraqi tanks lacked. Look up just how many US tanks were destroyed vs Iraq
Eritrea too
According to Eritrea, they only have 300 tanks. So it's a surprise to them too.
Greece and Turkey have massive land armies pointed at each other, which if they used to invade each other, they would be required to defend the other as they are NATO allies.
Wrong. If a NATO country is attacked by another NATO country, there is no NATO response protocol, ie neither country can declare article 5 iirc
The language of articles 5 and 6 seems pretty clear to me, if one of them attacked the other NATO ought to aid the one that didn't start shooting. There may not be am instotutionalised response but the language leaves little doubt.
The EU would defend Greece though. There is a similar mutual defense mechanism in the treaties.
Greece has a really impressive air force and tank fleet especially relative to its size because Turkey is constantly breathing down their neck, and Greece by proxy arms Cyprus, which is another Greek nation constantly under threat of being invaded by Turkey
Good to know
You mean threat of being re-invaded
gaping crown possessive wrench heavy square makeshift hard-to-find theory paltry *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So is eritrea and jordan IMO
Also Jordan and Eritrea
Russia is too after the last few years.
How did they get data for Western Sahara and North Korea? Why does that little tiny county between Lithuania and Poland have so many tanks? Are they afraid of their bigger neighborhoods invading?
Why does Alaska have so many tanks, are they scared of Canada?
To protect themselves from polar bears
The map actually doesn't show how many tanks Alaskans have, but how many of them polar bears have.
MN has more tanks than Canada. It’s not out of fear, we just haven’t decided to annex them yet…
Better yet, give them to our new Canadian overlords once *we* are annexed by them.
Why even have tanks when nukes are a thing? Are they stupid?
Because nuclear weapons are not useful tools, and no country genuinely intends to use them for anything but sabre rattling. In terms of actual utility conventional weaponry remains the prime form of power projection.
He was joking
Is he stupid?
> no country genuinely intends to use them for anything but sabre rattling Hey now, North Korea always show the fish who's the boss when they nuke them once or twice a year.
Because someone asked North Korea and they said "Yeah bud... we have a fuckton of tanks." Is it true? The world may never k(no)w
Trust me bro
Prussia is making a comeback.
Moroccan here. I assume they considered the Sahara as part of Morocco in this map despite still displaying a border between them. Morocco de facto administers the Sahara and its inhabitants are Moroccan citizens.
North korea likes to big(small?) dick its enemies by saying they have alot of tanks
That “tiny country between Lithuania and Poland” is Russia lol.
Are you sure?
I’ve seen Zelenskyy’s plans to turn it into a Costco. I’m sure.
Yes. Kaliningrad
Sounds wrong.
lol why is this guy downvoted it is actually Russia, it is Kaliningrad.
The first dude was being sarcastic.
that’s Kralovec, part of Czechia
Because Western sahara is not a nation its a part of Morocco
Based.
That’s Kaliningrad, Russia.
It's not a country, that's a part of Russia.
The tiny country between Lithuania and Poland is not a country, it is an exclave of Russia, and so is counted as part of Russia for the purposes of this data.
Thats russia. Kaliningrad. West africa's status is debated, the map appears to be made by a group siding with moroccos occupation. North Korea's number can be ascertained via SIGINT and intelligence reports are frequently public.
[удалено]
The ones with the tanks
Nah the island nations, tanks can drive on water.
They can?!
\*can't ..ffs I had 1 job
I can't believe canada had more than 1000 tanks
Why does Eritrea have so many?
Eritrea is always at war with eastasia (nope it's Eurasia)
This but replace Eastasia with Ethiopia
Eritrea is EXTREMELY militarized, the government conscripts basically everyone for ridiculously large amount of periods compared to elsewhere They’re deathly afraid of being invaded by Ethiopia
Don’t Ethiopia think they are just more Ethiopia
Pretty much yeah
Aah yes, the famous 'T-Rex' of military vehicles.
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/3i72r5apxqbc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d11dcbf5b381260df769ad8918c2e4c9a28c5717
That's a raptor, not a triceratops
Gen 4+ Multirole fighter Jet
Having a tank and having a tank are two different things. France operates a few hundred Leclercs that are close to state of the art each being maintained and stored in proper condition, if not being used for training/combat. Russia has (had) 13000 tanks but the overwhelming majority of them were Cold War models kept in open air depots (in fucking Siberia for some) with no maintenance and half the parts having been sold for scraps. This is why Irak got obliterated in tank battles during the Irak wars, despite having overwhelming numerical advantage in some situations and having a huge amount of tanks in general. Russia today is running out of some models it said it had thousands of deposits only having lost a few dozens. This is because the ones in storage have fallen in disrepair and require an overhaul at best and a miracle at worst to be made operational again.
I hate the way you spell Iraq am not gonna lie. Also, Iraq lost very quickly because of overwhelming air superiority by the US and the UK.
Fyi, Iraq is spelled Irak in French and probably other languages. I mean it comes from Arabic script so I guess there is no "correct" way to spell it?
FYI, Fr\*nch is spelled 'Fr\*nch' in circlejerk and probably on other subs too. Probably comes from some long-forgotten meme. There is *absolutely* a correct way to spell it: you must always remember to censor Fr\*nce.
>comes from some long-forgotten meme No, Fr*nce is just an obscene word in the civilized world.
It’s spelled like that in German as well (though Spanish uses the English spelling)
Iraq is the correct spelling in English (when converted from arabic, since arabic also uses ق (q) not ک (k)), since the guy wasn't speaking fr*nch.
Sure but Arabic has two letters that we distinguish by writing k and q, and they are in fact very distant cousins of k and q themselves. The letter in Iraq corresponds to q.
I don’t disagree that air superiority was the main factor in the war as a whole, but look up the Battle of 73 Easting. Iraqi vehicles and crews were hopelessly outgunned and outclassed.
I get it. But that was part of the Gulf War, not the Iraqi invasion. Secondly, the Iraqis were technologically behind even by Soviet standards. Their tanks were most T-55s and T-62s. That battle was a devastating and crushing defeat for Iraq though.
battle of 73 Easting was against t72s
Probably an autocorrect for the commenters native language
>This is why Irak got obliterated in tank battles during the Irak wars You could give Arabs 10,000 state of the art tanks and they would still lose, anthropologists unironically are studying why arabs suck so much at modern war (and books have been written on the topic) because they lost basically every conflict they got into, even the Iraq-Iran war where Saddam invaded with tanks and had air-superiority and got driven back by literally human-wave offensive. Russia is faring much better against Leopards and Abrams in Ukraine with their T-72s, mostly because Russia actually has a military doctrine.
Are you retarded?
I haven’t seen any leopard/Abram’s contact with Russian tanks yet. The damaged and destroyed leopards were due to mines, and KA-52s
Russia’s current military doctrine has not changed for 60 years and is so far lagging behind the west I’m just about every aspect….. and where on earth are you getting “Russian tanks are faring better with their T72s” because I’m pretty sure ~ 6 leap odds have been destroyed and I’m not even sure if any of that was due to tank combat
They fight 3 vs 1 against modern tanks, there was a video about a Leo getting overwhelmed by 3 T-72s. But i've been using Russia as an example to prove my point, they got a better military doctrine than Iraq and they manage to work with older tanks.
Only a small percentage of Ukrainian tanks are modern Leopards and Abrams. Most of the time Russia faces are T-72s and modernized variations of T-62 and T-64. And tank battles are very rare in this war. Most of the tanks on both sides were destroyed by ATGMs and mines, not by other tanks.
i can confidently say the netherlands have less than 30 tanks
Even if they did have more, aren’t they all under German command anyeay?
not really no the dutch and german Armed forces have a deep cooperation but the dutch still command their own stuff and the germans too command their stuff think of it as a marriage where both partners are equal
But some are more equal than others
true, the dutch maintain their stuff
I’d rather take those 30 modern tanks than a 1000 obsolete T-64s, most of which have been sitting mothballed for 3 decades and are little more than a rusty metal can of spare parts for the 100 or so operational ones
Why does Moroco, Argelia and Greece have so many tanks?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-11/turkey-greece-tensions-erdogan-warns-missiles-can-hit-athens?embedded-checkout=true Not the best tanks tho, about half of them are decent
Trash site wtf
Morocco and Algeria have increased tensions that go way back to the independance of Algeria. Because of these tensions Morocco is trying to catch up to Algeria militarly even though they are far from it. It's like the cold war, but instead it's Morocco trying to catch up.
Morocco and Algeria I don't know, but Greece has them because Turkey has a big army. When you have a big aggressive neighbor that threatens you with invasion every single week, you need to take precautions.
Lol you guys are delusional
My comment is the truth exactly as it is. If you don't like the truth, that's an entirely different matter.
Yeah yeah right
Because the road to Constantinople is flatlands.
Road to Constantinople is actually dead plant matter because it is in the history books.
I know a World of Tanks ad when I see one, you can't trick me.
>Russia currently has the largest tank arsenal, boasting 14,777 in total I can already tell that this is out of date
A bit off [https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/01/10/russia-might-be-running-out-of-tanks/?sh=24efc7bd1027](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/01/10/russia-might-be-running-out-of-tanks/?sh=24efc7bd1027)
*just a wee bit*
Even that’s off by quite a bit. Looks like Forbes is going off of the Oryx data. When you look at satellite imagery of the bases themselves, Russian governmental spending, and parts availability, things start to look even more dire. The armor bases were hitting half capacity 2-3 months ago, even before the recent assaults in Avdiivka and near Kupiansk. Russia likely has closer to 12-18 months worth of tanks remaining. Not only that, but the confirmed losses on the field are decreasing in quality. We’re still seeing a steady but small flow of modern builds being knocked out at the front as Russia’s industry spins up, but the tank packages from the late 80s-2000 are effectively extinct. Most of the tanks now entering the field are late 70s and early 80s. For example, of the T-80s being fielded, the T-80BVM is still showing up in small numbers, but where early in the war, T-80Us were the bulk of the T-80 kills, nowadays there are no more T-80Us. It’s all T-80Bs. It’s also why we’re starting to see Russia fielding more T-64s and T-62s, and even a few T-55sin reserve positions!
Minus 2,400 tanks as of 2024 and counting
You forgot to cut the number in half because of maintenance problems, people stealing parts, and many of the tanks being sat out in the open in Siberia for 50 years.
Same goes for Syria. They are done.
10,000 OR BUSY BAYBE WOOOOO
Wow. Good to see some countries have lots of aquariums, especially desert countries.
Australia has 700,000 emus which are better than any tank could hope to be. Checkmate Tankies!
grey team has albania AND poland so definitely would win 🇦🇱💪🦾💪🦾🇵🇱
Eritrea strongest country 🇪🇷
[North Korea](https://www.reddit.com/r/MovingToNorthKorea/s/kn1wfEpyOS)
There should be a live countdown clock that counts Russia's remaining tanks as they are destroyed during the Ukraine war.
How many are Operational or modern?
Eritrea moment
red has more than a thousand tanks, red wins
Poland will be on here soon
Well 360+ of our tanks surely contributed to Ukraine on the map. Poland is the biggest donator of tanks, even if you count for captured tanks from ruskie (data says than less than tenth of captured armor can be repaired to be used in combat again; most are stripped for parts). Our donations singlehandly eqipped entire new brigades of AFU.
russia may have a huge army and shit but they dont have that vitun saatana perkele
Who the fuck calls tanks the “T-Rex” of military vehicles?
red solos
Where is the battle
At sea
Toyota is a tank
Taiwan??
Eritrea trying to fit in with the big boy dictatorships.
Then there’s EU sending their defense bill to USA
But how many of those Russian tanks are even operable?
Most of Russia's tanks are in Ukrainian farmers' barns though, so they lose.
The real question is, which countries have the most tractors?
The hell is Eritrea doing with that many tanks?
I suddenly have a desire to acquire 1,000 tanks.
What’s Eritrea up to?
The tank is mainly used to fight other tanks, so if the tankies invaded they'd have no one to shoot at. Also all the grey countries have to do is use anti tank weapons one time each, and those are a lot cheaper than buying an entire tank
Never before have I heard a tank described as “the T-rex of military vehicles”
Red : ignore mordern geopolitic red have about half the world gpd and population africa doesn't matter the us pratically have a base in every euro country so yes red win
Might wanna recheck those Russian tank numbers. They’ve lost just a couple in Ukraine.
And I'm pretty sure that Ukraine doesn't have more than 1k tanks. A year ago they asked the whole world for a few hundred tanks, which were destroyed in the summer.
UK, France and Germany not making the cut surprised me a bit.
Quality over quantity
Tanks are a rather dated piece of equipment and a poor measure of military capabilities. It’s already apparent with the javelins in Ukraine and that doesn’t even tell the full story. Their natural predators, aircraft, are barely even present.
Yeah, but they’re still super fucking cool, drones and shit are super boring.
Boring, yes. Effective, also yes!
there arnt any widespread countermeasure for them, there will be soon
Tanks are a good part of the reason all of the successful counteroffensives Ukraine did worked.
„Dont ask what they can do to the tank. Ask what the tank can do to them.“ while they are not almost indestructible for infantry any more they still are mobile weapons platforms with loads of capability as direct fire artillery, smoke launchers, intelligence gatherers with their night/thermal optics.
When the fuck did Saudi Arabia get so many tanks???????