Thread by @Trotes936897

Why does the Brazilian army insist on an "MBT" with a maximum weight of 49 tons to replace the Leopard 1A5 and possible solution.

A thread 🧵

We have to keep in mind that in recent times the most hostile country on Brazil's borders has been Venezuela. With the country's current "president" Nicolas Maduro saying that they would knock out Brazil and Colombia's teeth in the event of war.

Most of the armored cavalry is located in the extreme south of the country, More than 3 thousand km away from the state of Roraima, a location more favorable to the use of MBTs, A very long distance for an asymmetrical country from the point of view of good railways and bridges.

You can indeed transport heavier vehicles anywhere you want, like a 55-ton K2 BP or even an abrams, for example. The problem lies in asymmetry. With a vehicle weighing less than 50 tons, it can reach the other side of the country faster than a heavier MBT.

The problem is that reducing weight goes against what the doctrine of armored forces says, they are a force focused on shock power, mobility and protection. With these requirements and hypothetically excluding the japanese Type 10, You would only be left with the "hybrid" option.

The hybrid option is IFV hulls with Turret mounting a 105 or 120mm cannon, with study groups at the EB indicating that hitfact II may be beneficial, but as previously stated, as they are lighter vehicles, protection is too limited to be able to fulfill what the doctrine says.

Possible solution

The adoption of two different platforms to meet the demand for strategic mobility and the need to follow the doctrine may be the solution to this problem.

The army could acquire a platform under 50 tons based on an IFV hull to meet the need for strategic mobility, why not take the hull of the new IFV that Will be purchased together with the new MBT and install a hitfact II turret on it?

There are other options such as the adoption of the Centauro II by the armored forces as well or even modernizing the Leopard 1A5, the point here is to use these vehicles as means of rapid intervention while the main MBTs do not arrive in the area.

The second vehicle would be a true MBT that would combine firepower, terrain mobility and protection without being limited by weight requirements. So following the doctrine, with this elimination of weight requirements opening several doors (some below).

But all of this just depends on money and what the EB thinks is best. for me, a simple civilian, is a more interesting approach to follow the doctrine of the force itself and continue to advance the field of MBTs in Latin America while having a rapid deployment force.