And lastly, I don't think 60 ton tanks can do well in Malaysian
terrain,
Sheer weight is not the thing to look into when you want to
consider mobility, ground pressure is.
Last I checked, erm, the Leo2 actually has better ground
pressure compared to the PT-91 that the MAF uses. What this means
is that in difficult terrain the Leo2 actually performs better then
the PT-91 despite being heavier.
This condition is not unusual, it was observed in WW2 when
the Pershing Medium Tank could handle terrain that the
Sherman tank could not, despite being much heavier. Get a 80kg
soldier in boots and a 45kg woman in heels to walk in mud, no
surprises for who gets bogged down first.
So the question I think reflected back is... with it's high
ground pressure and limited gun elevation, can the PT-91 do
well in the undulating, and (if going by your logic) soft terrain
of Malaysia?
Not bashing the PT-91, but I think the logic behind your
one-liners ought to apply to your own things as well to see if they
are really valid... if you don't think the Leo2 can do well in
Malaysian terrain then you probably have far less reason to believe
the MAF really made any sort of a smart idea buying a tank
with higher ground pressure and limited gun elevation (vastly
limiting the terrain that the tank can properly engage targets
from).
So I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at with your
one-liners... except demostrate general ignorance?
