Ok, Lost in the discussion on the Somalian Pirates seizure of the Ukrainian ships loaded with T-72 tanks here was why is Kenya buying so many Russian-made Main battle tanks and such relatively sophisticated ones at that (by African standards at least).
While Sudan has but recently been stocking up on T-72 tanks it is nominally still considered to be part of the Arab north of Africa (The Maghreb) and not Black Sub-Saharan Africa (although the Southern part perhaps is). Kenya on the other hand, by buying 77 T-72's last year and 33 more this year would be the first, or perhaps the second (maybe behind Angola?) "black" African country to purchase and utilize the T-72 tank.
Why the escalation from ancient Vickers Mk. 3's to T-72's? Should we be reading in this? A 100 tanks (working tanks) is a LOT by Sub-Saharan African standards. Does Kenya have larger ambitions and pretentions perhaps? How does this affect the strategic balance in the area and in and around the Horn of Africa with Eritrea and Ethiopia and Sudan?
How does this effect South Africa? Although they are a pretty long ways away from each other and not ever likely to fight each other one still has to contingency plan and S. Africa's tank force of elderly modified Centurions is kaput last time I checked.
Is it true that Ethiopia has any T-72 tanks because I have heard rumors as such for a long time and could we not see a conventional war in the region soon with T-72 vs. T-72 set piece battles with Ethiopia, Sudan, and Kenya now all holding?
Full Version: African arms race w/ tanks?
600km border with Ethiopia, 800km border with Somalia. Maybe the answer is that simple?
Kenya was traditionally one of the better-equipped powers in Black Africa, just like Nigeria once was.
Especially the Kenyan Air Force was (or is) pretty well-equipped (with planes at least).
Especially the Kenyan Air Force was (or is) pretty well-equipped (with planes at least).
This is interesting, very interesting.
As some of you may well know Somaliland was an independent nation that joined Somalia then to little world attention in 1991 when Somalia went into anarchy it declared its independence. It has had battle recently over the past 15 years with warlords in the semi-autonomous region of Puntland (where the Pirates are located) and other Somalia mainland forces.
Well, look what the defense forces of Somaliland still nominally have listed in the inventory of its army:
The serviceability of the equipment is poor and status is unknown.
Centurion main battle tanks
M47 Patton main battle tanks
T-54/T-55 main battle tanks
T-34 medium tanks
M41 Walker Bulldog light tanks
Panhard AML 90 armoured cars
BRDM-2 reconnaissance vehicles
BTR-50 tracked armored personnel carriers
BTR-40, BTR-60 and BTR-152 wheeled armored personnel carriers
Fiat 6614/6616 armored personnel carriers
BMR-600 armored personnel carriers
BM-21 mobile rocket launchers
BGM-71 TOW anti-tank guided missiles
M198 towed howitzers
Everyone has pretty much closed the books on chapters dealing with the operation history and combat use of the Centurion and M-47 Patton tanks but there could have been some very recent battles where these tanks were used on the horn of Africa that we know little to nothing about.
Military of Somaliland
As some of you may well know Somaliland was an independent nation that joined Somalia then to little world attention in 1991 when Somalia went into anarchy it declared its independence. It has had battle recently over the past 15 years with warlords in the semi-autonomous region of Puntland (where the Pirates are located) and other Somalia mainland forces.
Well, look what the defense forces of Somaliland still nominally have listed in the inventory of its army:
QUOTE
The serviceability of the equipment is poor and status is unknown.
Centurion main battle tanks
M47 Patton main battle tanks
T-54/T-55 main battle tanks
T-34 medium tanks
M41 Walker Bulldog light tanks
Panhard AML 90 armoured cars
BRDM-2 reconnaissance vehicles
BTR-50 tracked armored personnel carriers
BTR-40, BTR-60 and BTR-152 wheeled armored personnel carriers
Fiat 6614/6616 armored personnel carriers
BMR-600 armored personnel carriers
BM-21 mobile rocket launchers
BGM-71 TOW anti-tank guided missiles
M198 towed howitzers
Everyone has pretty much closed the books on chapters dealing with the operation history and combat use of the Centurion and M-47 Patton tanks but there could have been some very recent battles where these tanks were used on the horn of Africa that we know little to nothing about.
Military of Somaliland
Ethiopia and Sudan were also said to be supplied with some small numbers of M-47 and M-60 Patton tanks (as well as M-41 Walker Bulldogs). I wonder if they are still extant and what role they have played in any of the recent civil unrest and border wars?
QUOTE(tanknut @ Sun 28 Sep 2008 2107) 
Deploying a 64,000 man army with 12 divisions for $10 million per year? I think they could teach our MoD a thing or two!
QUOTE(Chris Werb @ Sun 28 Sep 2008 1535)
Deploying a 64,000 man army with 12 divisions for $10 million per year? I think they could teach our MoD a thing or two!
Rule number one of 3rd - world military: imaginary units are much cheaper to operate than real ones.
QUOTE(tanknut @ Sun 28 Sep 2008 2107)
This is interesting, very interesting.
As some of you may well know Somaliland was an independent nation that joined Somalia
As some of you may well know Somaliland was an independent nation that joined Somalia
As the Wikipedia article notes, Somaliland was notionally independent as a separate state for 5 days. It & the Somali Republic merged, as planned before either became independent, as soon as the Somali Republic gained independence, 5 days after Somaliland. Somaliland wasn't ever truly an independent nation: it was part of a larger nation state which became self-governing a few days before the rest, for some obscure administrative reason. Maybe the Italians & British couldn't agree on a mutually convenient date.
QUOTE(Unreal John @ Mon 29 Sep 2008 0131)
Rule number one of 3rd - world military: imaginary units are much cheaper to operate than real ones.
And beyond that when your average per capita income is around one hundred dollars, you build alot of man power for not much coin.
QUOTE(JamesG123 @ Sun 28 Sep 2008 2328)
And beyond that when your average per capita income is around one hundred dollars, you build alot of man power for not much coin.
Such low per capita GDPs are quite misleading. Lots of grey market and subsistence economy are usually not shown in such statistics.
Soldiers (real soldiers) cannot work on their own fields for subsistence and are not supposed to be involved in much grey market activity.
The annual personnel costs per (real) soldier can be expected to be many times as high as the per capita GDP.
It is still very low compared to Western armies (which was the point).
Word now is the tanks were actually headed for Sudan.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igGmlfz...0vpCugD93GGS380
QUOTE
US circles hijacked ship with Sudan-bound weapons
By MOHAMED OLAD HASSAN and BARBARA SURK – 18 hours ago
MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) — U.S. warships and helicopters on Monday surrounded a hijacked cargo ship loaded with Sudan-bound tanks and other arms to keep the weapons from falling "into the wrong hands," an American Navy spokesman said.
The shipment of 33 Russian-designed tanks, rifles and ammunition on the Ukrainian-operated Faina was headed for Sudan — not Kenya as previously claimed by Kenyan officials, said Lt. Nathan Christensen, a deputy spokesman for the U.S. Navy's Bahrain-based 5th Fleet.
(...)
The 5th Fleet said the ship was headed for the Kenyan port of Mombasa, but that "additional reports state the cargo was intended for Sudan."
Christensen did not specify whether the arms were intended for the Khartoum-based government, or southern Sudan, which was granted a degree of autonomy under a 2005 peace deal that also guaranteed the oil-rich region a referendum on full independence in 2011.
The U.N. has imposed an arms embargo on weapons headed to Sudan's Darfur conflict zone. The ban does not cover other weapons sales to the governments in Khartoum or southern Sudan.
The shipment was destined for southern Sudan — not Darfur — and did not violate the embargo, a Western diplomat in Nairobi, Kenya, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he's not authorized to speak to the press, told the AP.
(...)
Kenyan officials on Monday declined to discuss the destination of the weapons. Ukrainian Defense Ministry spokesman Valentyn Mandriyevsky said the ministry was not dealing in weapons trade and didn't know where the cargo was bound.
A spokesman for Ukraine's arms trader, Ukrspetexport, had no immediate comment.
Western intelligence reports a few days ago said the ultimate destination was Sudan and that Kenya was only the transshipment point, said one Western official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing classified material. He said the issue became confused after Kenyan leaders had publicly referred to the tanks as their own.
(...)
By MOHAMED OLAD HASSAN and BARBARA SURK – 18 hours ago
MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) — U.S. warships and helicopters on Monday surrounded a hijacked cargo ship loaded with Sudan-bound tanks and other arms to keep the weapons from falling "into the wrong hands," an American Navy spokesman said.
The shipment of 33 Russian-designed tanks, rifles and ammunition on the Ukrainian-operated Faina was headed for Sudan — not Kenya as previously claimed by Kenyan officials, said Lt. Nathan Christensen, a deputy spokesman for the U.S. Navy's Bahrain-based 5th Fleet.
(...)
The 5th Fleet said the ship was headed for the Kenyan port of Mombasa, but that "additional reports state the cargo was intended for Sudan."
Christensen did not specify whether the arms were intended for the Khartoum-based government, or southern Sudan, which was granted a degree of autonomy under a 2005 peace deal that also guaranteed the oil-rich region a referendum on full independence in 2011.
The U.N. has imposed an arms embargo on weapons headed to Sudan's Darfur conflict zone. The ban does not cover other weapons sales to the governments in Khartoum or southern Sudan.
The shipment was destined for southern Sudan — not Darfur — and did not violate the embargo, a Western diplomat in Nairobi, Kenya, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he's not authorized to speak to the press, told the AP.
(...)
Kenyan officials on Monday declined to discuss the destination of the weapons. Ukrainian Defense Ministry spokesman Valentyn Mandriyevsky said the ministry was not dealing in weapons trade and didn't know where the cargo was bound.
A spokesman for Ukraine's arms trader, Ukrspetexport, had no immediate comment.
Western intelligence reports a few days ago said the ultimate destination was Sudan and that Kenya was only the transshipment point, said one Western official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing classified material. He said the issue became confused after Kenyan leaders had publicly referred to the tanks as their own.
(...)
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igGmlfz...0vpCugD93GGS380
More on the Sudan link from StrategyPage: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/a...s/20080930.aspx
Sorry, but Sudan?
Check the geography. Ukraine or Russia to Sudan is easily done by shipping through the Suez channel, staying far away from Somalia.
The tanks would have needed to origin in East Asian Russian depots to be shipped along Somalia to Sudan.
A shipping through Mombasa to Sudan makes very little sense, even if we think about Kenya as possible intermediate trader to avoid a probably politically delicate direct sale.
Kenya is not at very good odds with Sudan afaik, and the infrastructure for a transport to the southern tip of Sudan is poor.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...f-map-towns.jpg
Check the geography. Ukraine or Russia to Sudan is easily done by shipping through the Suez channel, staying far away from Somalia.
The tanks would have needed to origin in East Asian Russian depots to be shipped along Somalia to Sudan.
A shipping through Mombasa to Sudan makes very little sense, even if we think about Kenya as possible intermediate trader to avoid a probably politically delicate direct sale.
Kenya is not at very good odds with Sudan afaik, and the infrastructure for a transport to the southern tip of Sudan is poor.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...f-map-towns.jpg
Ecclectic command of facts as usual. Sudan is not at very good odds with Southern Sudan, which would make offloading tanks for the latter from the Red Sea rather unwise. Kenya, while indeed not at very good odds with Sudan, on the flip side is at good odds with the SPLM government (the latter being headquartered in Nairobi during the war in the 1990s IIRC).
You assume that the sale was for a rebel movement? 33 Ukrainian T-72's to a rebel movement?
(OK, they control some territory - but what I've seen in reports about them did not hint at them being potential users of so many 70's tanks.)
(OK, they control some territory - but what I've seen in reports about them did not hint at them being potential users of so many 70's tanks.)
That they were for a rebel army is an interesting, Clancyesque twist. Prehaps the hyjack wasn't random piracy either?
Perhaps the sudden interest isn't random, either. 
How many ships have they hijacked before?
How many ships have they hijacked before?
In today's Wall Street Journal Online's "Best of the Web" column, an interview with one of the pirate leaders is excerpted from the New York Times.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122279617660691003.html
Scroll down to the bottom.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122279617660691003.html
Scroll down to the bottom.
QUOTE(lastdingo @ Tue 30 Sep 2008 1517)
You assume that the sale was for a rebel movement? 33 Ukrainian T-72's to a rebel movement?
(OK, they control some territory - but what I've seen in reports about them did not hint at them being potential users of so many 70's tanks.)
(OK, they control some territory - but what I've seen in reports about them did not hint at them being potential users of so many 70's tanks.)
What capability do they get from a doo-dadded T72 that they won't from a T55 or T62?
QUOTE(Luke_Yaxley @ Wed 1 Oct 2008 1221)
What capability do they get from a doo-dadded T72 that they won't from a T55 or T62?
Safe from the frontal arc against RPG-7 with older ammo? I think it would be a nice feature to have in a tank in Africa.
QUOTE(Luke_Yaxley @ Wed 1 Oct 2008 0921)
What capability do they get from a doo-dadded T72 that they won't from a T55 or T62?
Besides RPG protection from the front, also T-72s will have a considerable edge in firepower and protection alike against those T-55s (or Pattons or whatever similar generation tanks) that are by far the most likely armored opponents to run into in Africa...
QUOTE(Luke_Yaxley @ Wed 1 Oct 2008 1121)
What capability do they get from a doo-dadded T72 that they won't from a T55 or T62?
You can wipe the floor with T-55s with impunity.
But would it really be worthwhile for a bunch of militia to use effectively as mobile artillery?
How about servicability? How long before Clancy-ite militia armed with T-72's electrical systems fall into disrepair?
I'm talking about somali or Sudanese militiamen here, not the Kenyan army BTW.
How about servicability? How long before Clancy-ite militia armed with T-72's electrical systems fall into disrepair?
I'm talking about somali or Sudanese militiamen here, not the Kenyan army BTW.
QUOTE(Luke_Yaxley @ Wed 1 Oct 2008 1350)
But would it really be worthwhile for a bunch of militia to use effectively as mobile artillery?
How about servicability? How long before Clancy-ite militia armed with T-72's electrical systems fall into disrepair?
I'm talking about somali or Sudanese militiamen here, not the Kenyan army BTW.
How about servicability? How long before Clancy-ite militia armed with T-72's electrical systems fall into disrepair?
I'm talking about somali or Sudanese militiamen here, not the Kenyan army BTW.
Well the somali "militia / pirates" seem quite capable of equipping fast powerboats, not to mention motherships for those boats.. given that they can probably obtain a technical manual for T-72 and have the same brain capability of us extremely smart westerners and probably want to keep the T-72s operable, given their capabilities and even the prestige those true machines of war give to any rebel groups I can´t see why they couldn´t maintain them. If they have spare parts.. and perhaps a maintenance shop of some kind.
QUOTE(BansheeOne @ Tue 30 Sep 2008 0705)
Word now is the tanks were actually headed for Sudan.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igGmlfz...0vpCugD93GGS380
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igGmlfz...0vpCugD93GGS380
The Ironic thing is those tanks falling into the hands of its intended customer (Sudan) is the wrong hands! I hope they were going to Southern Sudan (The SPLA) and not the gov. of Sudan.
QUOTE(lastdingo @ Tue 30 Sep 2008 0917)
You assume that the sale was for a rebel movement? 33 Ukrainian T-72's to a rebel movement?
(OK, they control some territory - but what I've seen in reports about them did not hint at them being potential users of so many 70's tanks.)
(OK, they control some territory - but what I've seen in reports about them did not hint at them being potential users of so many 70's tanks.)
At one point the SPLA was said to control an army of 150,000 active fighter! I have never seen a quote of their strength under 50,000 men in number. They already field LOTS of government captured artillery and T-55 tanks and control LOTS of land (like land in the amount of the size of Spain sized).
This kind of hits at my point from before though, so few people have much knowledge or grasp of much of what is going on in Africa but as far as wars, conventional ones and civil, and of potential tanks in combat use and match-ups it is far likelier to occur here than in any other region of the world (and FAR more likely than in Europe). Too bad the reports we get back out of sparse and usually lacking in details.
QUOTE(Luke_Yaxley @ Wed 1 Oct 2008 0421)
What capability do they get from a doo-dadded T72 that they won't from a T55 or T62?
The improved ability to take on the Sudanese government T-55's, Type-59, and T-72 tanks in all out conventional war...because it will come to that, and in a few years when the deadline is reached for Southern Sudan to vote for its independence ala East Timor and Sudan will NOT be ready and willing to give it up, not with all its oil and mineral wealth. I'm telling you guys, you may get lost in war gaming for highly unlikely war scenarios in Europe but this is the place to watch if one wants to see how well modern Russian tanks fight one another and against their Chinese made brethren. War is terrible, but with the eclectic used of old American, British as well as Soviet and Chinese weapons it could make for some interesting match-ups and insightful analysis and articles. This will be one of those wars that will prove conventional combat can still happen and the tank still has a palce on the modern battlefield.
QUOTE(Luke_Yaxley @ Wed 1 Oct 2008 0550)
But would it really be worthwhile for a bunch of militia to use effectively as mobile artillery?
How about servicability? How long before Clancy-ite militia armed with T-72's electrical systems fall into disrepair?
I'm talking about somali or Sudanese militiamen here, not the Kenyan army BTW.
How about servicability? How long before Clancy-ite militia armed with T-72's electrical systems fall into disrepair?
I'm talking about somali or Sudanese militiamen here, not the Kenyan army BTW.
We are not talking about rag-tag militia but a aged, highly disciplined, and skilled rebel army organization. And as for Mobil artillery comment, I would not be so sure. I am telling you guys, if you ever wondered how some of the newer Chinese tanks stack up against the Russian kit, keep your eyes fixed on that region over the next few years!
Type 96 tanks sold to Goverment of Sudan
QUOTE(Vasiliy Fofanov @ Wed 1 Oct 2008 1408)
You can wipe the floor with T-55s with impunity.
Only if the T-72 crew is of higher quality. I have doubts as to whether the average African tank crew could even keep a T-72 autoloader working.
QUOTE(JamesG123 @ Thu 2 Oct 2008 0032)
Only if the T-72 crew is of higher quality. I have doubts as to whether the average African tank crew could even keep a T-72 autoloader working.
As long as the T-72 crew manages to keep themselves from being ambushed from the sides/rear at close range, they would at least be fairly safe from anything the T-55 could throw at them, and even if they had trouble maintaining the fire-control system, one would imagine it would be a lot easier for the T-72 crew to score hits with 1800m/s APFSDS than for the T-55 with 900m/s HEAT/AP rounds...
QUOTE(JamesG123 @ Thu 2 Oct 2008 0232)
Only if the T-72 crew is of higher quality.
No. As much as I like the argument in favor of the better crew, the T-72's armor protection is so much better especially against available munitions for the 100mm gun aside from the odd lucky hit and ambush/flank attack situations that you'd have to have a crew of monkeys in a T-72 to win against it. The T-72 is a pretty decent tank. Sure, its post-penetration survivability leaves quite a bit to be desired, but just as it stands no chance against the latest western designs, the difference in technology is almost the same for the T-55 vs. T-72 pairing.
My guess is that the militia should be generally comparable (re. training etc.) to regular Sudanese army, if not better. So given all else is equal, T-72 is gonna mean a good boost of capabilities for them.
When was the last African re-enactment of 73 Eastings?
How many Tank-vs-Tank engagements of any consequence have there been?
The vast bulk of the time these are just rolling artilery pieces...
How many Tank-vs-Tank engagements of any consequence have there been?
The vast bulk of the time these are just rolling artilery pieces...
Might it be that the militias realised this and spent some time in improving armor fighting qualities? A semi-competent tank crews (in Northern style) might be a nasty surprise to the "fire support only" enemies, esp. if sporting T-72's vs. T-55's 
QUOTE(Luke_Yaxley @ Thu 2 Oct 2008 0341)
When was the last African re-enactment of 73 Eastings?
How many Tank-vs-Tank engagements of any consequence have there been?
The vast bulk of the time these are just rolling artilery pieces...
How many Tank-vs-Tank engagements of any consequence have there been?
The vast bulk of the time these are just rolling artilery pieces...
To my knowledge there have been no real tank-vs-tank battles in Africa since Angola in 1987/88.
Govt of Sudan has Chinese Type-85 MBTs (I'm sure we discussed this in a thread I can't find now, but anyway, they have a factory producing them along with various other Chinese AFVs). So 125mm main gun, composite laminate frontal armour, 730hp diesel engine, etc. SPLA looking for a counter in form of T-72??
oh whoopeeeeeeeeee, more possible traffic in Khartoum - maybe I can pick one up for the wife - she is the family driver
QUOTE(baboon6 @ Thu 2 Oct 2008 0809)
To my knowledge there have been no real tank-vs-tank battles in Africa since Angola in 1987/88.
It's because information is a Black Hole over there, a lot of weapons go in, and a LOT of fighting goes on-but almost no news comes out. At least not to the higher standard we have here with lots of photographs, details, information, and analysis. I have heard snippets of information of tank combat, and even sometimes some tank vs tank combat in both Congo wars in the late 1990s, Sudan, Somalia (early 1990s), Ivory Coast, Uganda, Angola (early to late 1990s), Mauritinia, and Chad to name a few (obviously not all on the lsit were tank vs tank bu tanks used in combat nontheless). So it is going on there, I know this, I just don't know all the details because no one over there writes any friggen books, at least not any former soldiers like we have here in western Societies. There were also Tank vs Tank battles aplenty in Ethiopia and Eritrea during the past 30 years as well.
QUOTE(tanknut @ Thu 2 Oct 2008 0014)
Actually Sudan is equipped with the Al-Bashier (Chinese Type 85-IIM...):
Shot at 2008-10-04
Shot at 2008-10-04
QUOTE(Luke_Yaxley @ Wed 1 Oct 2008 1350)
How about servicability? How long before Clancy-ite militia armed with T-72's electrical systems fall into disrepair?
There is nothing exept II's that local with basic knowledge of car's electricity can't fix in T-72...it is pure mechanics man!
QUOTE(Jim Warford @ Sun 5 Oct 2008 1234)
Actually Sudan is equipped with the Al-Bashier (Chinese Type 85-IIM...):
Shot at 2008-10-04
Shot at 2008-10-04
Shot at 2008-10-04
Shot at 2008-10-04
90-II, not 85-IIM or 96.
QUOTE(TRYTRY @ Mon 6 Oct 2008 0415)
90-II, not 85-IIM or 96.
No it is not.
Look at the drivers hatch location. In a Type-90 and related tanks like MBT-2000 it is in the centre under the gun, not offset to one side like on the Type-85 (which is what these Sudanese tanks are).
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/image...e85_01large.jpg
Africans are often quite adept at maintaining foreign vehicles. They do it 'differently', but their improvisation often succeeds.
African guerrilla movements often had the capability to capture, repair and cannibalize foreign tanks without proper tools and training.
Spare parts for parts that get worn out by usage are necessary if it's not all about cannibalizing, though.
African guerrilla movements often had the capability to capture, repair and cannibalize foreign tanks without proper tools and training.
Spare parts for parts that get worn out by usage are necessary if it's not all about cannibalizing, though.
QUOTE(jakec @ Tue 7 Oct 2008 0248)
No it is not.
Look at the drivers hatch location. In a Type-90 and related tanks like MBT-2000 it is in the centre under the gun, not offset to one side like on the Type-85 (which is what these Sudanese tanks are).
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/image...e85_01large.jpg
Look at the drivers hatch location. In a Type-90 and related tanks like MBT-2000 it is in the centre under the gun, not offset to one side like on the Type-85 (which is what these Sudanese tanks are).
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/image...e85_01large.jpg
It is NORINCO who named it, not sinodefence.
We can also recall it is PLA who named 3rd MBT ZTZ-99, not Wanghui's ZTZ-98.
QUOTE(TRYTRY @ Tue 7 Oct 2008 1150)
It is NORINCO who named it, not sinodefence.
We can also recall it is PLA who named 3rd MBT ZTZ-99, not Wanghui's ZTZ-98.
We can also recall it is PLA who named 3rd MBT ZTZ-99, not Wanghui's ZTZ-98.
So you are saying that the tank I think is called Type-85 is actually called Type-90-II?
I am not suggesting any special knowledge on the part of sinodefence (far from it!), rather I used them because they have a convenient illustration that shows my point regarding the location of the drivers hatch on (what I call) Type-85. Happy to use any other illustration of what I call Type-85 from any non-sinodefence source you might prefer. I'm confident they'll feature the driver's hatch in the location I mention, as do the Sudanese tanks.
Equally, happy to refer to any illustration of Type-90-II you prefer. Again, reasonably confident they'll show the driver's hatch in a different location (i.e. in the centre of the glacis).
I submit again, the Sudanese tank illustrated here (http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/8692/tank2mi8.jpg) is a Type-85-IIM.
Here's a link to the thread about Sudanese hardware, including the Al-Bashier 1:
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showt...46&hl=Sudan
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showt...46&hl=Sudan
Hijacked tanks 'for South Sudan'
Look's like they already got at least one shipment successfully delivered to them already.
The Southern Sudanese forces already had at least 50 if not 100 T-54/55 and Type-59 Main Battle tanks in their army when the cease-fire was reached in 2004. So with 100 more tanks delivered and counting that puts them at around the 150 to 200 tanks to go against Gov. of Sudan's 400 to 800 main battle tanks.
By the time 2011 rolls around this could be a nice sized conventional war post referendum and could feature all kinds of modern Com-block tanks dueling it out with one another.
Look's like they already got at least one shipment successfully delivered to them already.
QUOTE
Last week, Western military experts told the BBC that the tanks on board the MV Faina were going to Sudan and that the shipment indicated an arms race between North and South Sudan had begun.
The pirates want a $20m ransom for the MV Faina and its valuable cargo
They are reported to both be building up their forces ahead of a referendum on independence for the South in 2011.
The military experts, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said a previous delivery of tanks had taken place last November.
Helmoed Heitman, Africa correspondent for Jane's Defence Weekly, also said he had reports that more than 100 T-72 and T-55 Russian tanks have been received by the southern Sudanese in recent months.
"If these reports are true, they could change the regional military balance," he told the BBC.
"Kenya could be seen as playing the same role as Cuba did during the Angolan civil war - when they armed the MPLA."
The pirates want a $20m ransom for the MV Faina and its valuable cargo
They are reported to both be building up their forces ahead of a referendum on independence for the South in 2011.
The military experts, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said a previous delivery of tanks had taken place last November.
Helmoed Heitman, Africa correspondent for Jane's Defence Weekly, also said he had reports that more than 100 T-72 and T-55 Russian tanks have been received by the southern Sudanese in recent months.
"If these reports are true, they could change the regional military balance," he told the BBC.
"Kenya could be seen as playing the same role as Cuba did during the Angolan civil war - when they armed the MPLA."
The Southern Sudanese forces already had at least 50 if not 100 T-54/55 and Type-59 Main Battle tanks in their army when the cease-fire was reached in 2004. So with 100 more tanks delivered and counting that puts them at around the 150 to 200 tanks to go against Gov. of Sudan's 400 to 800 main battle tanks.
By the time 2011 rolls around this could be a nice sized conventional war post referendum and could feature all kinds of modern Com-block tanks dueling it out with one another.
QUOTE(jakec @ Tue 7 Oct 2008 2148)
So you are saying that the tank I think is called Type-85 is actually called Type-90-II?
I am not suggesting any special knowledge on the part of sinodefence (far from it!), rather I used them because they have a convenient illustration that shows my point regarding the location of the drivers hatch on (what I call) Type-85. Happy to use any other illustration of what I call Type-85 from any non-sinodefence source you might prefer. I'm confident they'll feature the driver's hatch in the location I mention, as do the Sudanese tanks.
Equally, happy to refer to any illustration of Type-90-II you prefer. Again, reasonably confident they'll show the driver's hatch in a different location (i.e. in the centre of the glacis).
I submit again, the Sudanese tank illustrated here (http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/8692/tank2mi8.jpg) is a Type-85-IIM.
I am not suggesting any special knowledge on the part of sinodefence (far from it!), rather I used them because they have a convenient illustration that shows my point regarding the location of the drivers hatch on (what I call) Type-85. Happy to use any other illustration of what I call Type-85 from any non-sinodefence source you might prefer. I'm confident they'll feature the driver's hatch in the location I mention, as do the Sudanese tanks.
Equally, happy to refer to any illustration of Type-90-II you prefer. Again, reasonably confident they'll show the driver's hatch in a different location (i.e. in the centre of the glacis).
I submit again, the Sudanese tank illustrated here (http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/8692/tank2mi8.jpg) is a Type-85-IIM.
You are right. My friend fooled me, I kicked him.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.