Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
The real point about any country wanting to "own tanks" or any relatively complicated peace of military technology is the flow down effects of cost. Any bunch of clowns can buy some tanks and drive them around.
Tanks are part of combined arms, which is still the most demanding form of land warfare on the plant both in terms of investment and skill.

The point being that if you take the automotive and high weight debt out of the combined arms equation, you still have some pretty good capability, where even just large numbers can actually start to reap some real benefits. Skill however is still required, but it can be a lot more focussed and gained more easily.
That's true and fair, but there is still a very broad range between an M-1, Bradley-mounted Infantry, and Palladin for fires system, on the one hand, and one with M-50s, infantry that ride atop the tanks (which has some advantages the best IFV can't quite match; also some disadvantages), with 160mm Soltam-Tampala mortars for fire support. The country that can't do the former might still be able to do the latter to good effect, and at a supportable cost.

Of course, in considerable part, Dayahun is right; these countries don't want the systems to use them, but to show them. Currently I'm having to dig, for example, into the Venezuelan Navy. Lots of tooth there, however indifferently maintained. And even a degree of amphibious capability. And subs. And patrol boats. All those are sexy, so they have to have them. But no mine sweepers. No mine sweepers in a country that absolutely must export oil through a very limited number of ports and some fairly narrow channels. If there's any UNREP (underway replenishment) capability, it's around the margins. They're not sexy. They make a poor show.