When Romania buys its next M.B.T. which should be?

I have a question about the mbt that Romania can get. Is it true that we can only have tanks under 50t (because of a treaty that Romania has signed) ? I seem to have read that somewhere... In this case... then... we are pretty much %$&^ed, as most of today's best mbt are at about 60-62 t...

It´s not true. In the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (signed in 1990 between NATO and Warsaw pact ) it´s only mention the maximun number of MBT that one country can have at one time.

Troop ceilings
The CFE Treaty sets equal ceilings for each bloc (NATO and the Warsaw pact), from the Atlantic to the Urals, on key armaments essential for conducting surprise attacks and initiating large-scale offensive operations. Collectively, the treaty participants have agreed that neither side may have more than:

20,000 tanks;
20,000 artillery pieces;
30,000 armored combat vehicles (ACVs);
6,800 combat aircraft; and
2,000 attack helicopters.
To further limit the readiness of armed forces, the treaty sets equal ceilings on equipment that may be with active units. Other ground equipment must be in designated permanent storage sites. The limits for equipment each side may have in active units are:

16,500 tanks;
17,000 artillery pieces; and
27,300 armored combat vehicles (ACVs);
The treaty further limits the proportion of armaments that can be held by any one country in Europe to about one-third of the total for all countries in Europe - the "sufficiency" rule. These limits are:[4]

13,300 tanks;
13,700 artillery pieces;
20,000 armored combat vehicles (ACVs);
5,150 combat aircraft; and
1,500 attack helicopters.

Thank you STI, but is that treaty still in effect? There is no more Warsaw Pact...

the wikipedia entry from where the info is from states:

So, instead of Warsaw Pact, we have only Russia, but the terms are quite the same - hostility and all...

Iraq has asked U.S. for 140 more Abrams tanks

He said the tanks cost about $4.45 million each, so the total cost of that order would be around $625 million, not including maintenance and training for their use.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...E52M4BI20090323

It doesn't say (in the article quoted, at least) whether they received the first 140 tanks! Maybe the Americans will let them have the tanks already in Iraq - after all, they're already used to sand

for the sake of the national military industry and econ I would choose TR 2000.

but IF I were a commander of a tank unit I would LOVE to have some british Chalenger 2 in my hands. especialy if my unit was fighting superior numbers of russian armor.
my second choice would be Leopard 2

Leo 2 built under licence. It doesn`t make sense to reinvent the wheel...

Hallo,
I guess the Leopard 2 E version, a derivative of the 2A6, with greater armour protection, build in Spain in cooperation with Germany, would be a good choice! And our contribution could be significant since our industry tried to copy the german tank since the '80s. And surely an important asset to our army. But if we want to think in the future a better choice will be surely the south-korean K2 Black Panther, a really fantastic tank! But this is surely just a dream...

Oh, dreams...
As it was very much the case with the acquisition of new(er) fighters, it would seem that our army's real needs will play just a minor role in choosing what and how expensive we'll buy.
We'll live to see it, hopefully; to express my oppinion, I would also like to choose TR2000, as long as we have the factories to build it and its spare parts, ammo etc.

Indeed, the correct question of the thread would be When will Romania buy its next MBT, not Which should it be. I don't think Romania will buy a new MBT in the next 20 years.

There might be some truth in what you say... Whereas the problem of a new(er) fighter has been "on the table" for some years now, the tanks seem not to be an urgent matter. Are there at least any plans for replacing them (by the Army/Government/etc.)?

Honestly, it would be better to upgrade the TR-85 with a gun at least 105 mm, and use the spared money for 16-24 Tigers or Mangusta attack helicopters. They will be a better tank killer...

This post has been edited by Hadrian on January 25, 2010 03:40 pm

Well, i think 100mm is still enough to destroy any other enemy tank, if you use a good munition (sabot projectile, or other). In WW II german tank as Pz V Panther had just a 75 mm calibre gun if i remember correct, but still was one of the best guns of the era.
However, i agree a bigger gun will be better, and will be even better that a new tank will be made, maybe that colaboration with germans, to make our own Leopard variant.
Unfortunately, with this crisis, i dont think will made soon, and Air Force is much more in a need for a new fighter/multirol jet.

Maybe until then will be better to buy, or much better produce here some AT portable rockets, and RPG's, i remember a guerrila force as Hezbollah do it surprisingly well against israelis armoured forces, including Merkava IV tank, one of the best protected in the world (and i think chechens in their first war with russians did the same).