OK, we can admit, that SA has one of the best (or the best?) MBT in the world, even in relevant quantity. But we all know, that value in combat depends not only on this. As we could see, Abrams in hands of Marines is weapons, which no one wants to face. But what is Abrams in hands of Saudis? If we want to base our opinion on historical experience, Arab soldiers generally could not reach standard of their enemies (US, Israel....). What I want to say: if I had to choose, i would bet on Israeli battalion rather than SA regiment, regardless of the equipment

OK, how about Israelis vs Marines then, similar force composition?

 

 

The bottom line for all desert-dwellers is, however, that without air superiority tanks are expensive coffins.  The Germans learned this in WWII, the Egyptians took it on the chin vs Israel, and ask any surviving Iraqi tankers about whether their sphincters still clench when they hear the brrrrrrrraaaaaaapppppp of an A-10's GAU8.  Or Lybian tankers what their opinion of the Brimstone missile is.

 

Modern tanks have been relegated primarily to assault gun status.  Oh, did I touch a nerve?  Tell ya what:  take a regiment of 48 M1's and start in Baq'a.  I get a company of 16 M1's, 4 Apaches, 4 A-10s and 6 Predator drones in Rumah.  Our objective is King Kahlid Military City.  Like your chances?

The ability of air power to influence the battlefield is condition, terrain, and weather based.  Even for the US there are times air power is not decisive.  See 1991 73 Easting, 1993 Somalia, March  24th 2003 at Karbala where we had 31 AH-64's so damaged the unit wasn't combat effective again for a month.

 

For the rest of the world air superiority is not assured and the most common condition will be limited impact of air power against varied levels of air defenses.  The lesson for Israel the last time they went into Lebanon was that air power is overrated and the combined arms team (armor, infantry, artillery, engineers, air power, etc.) is still the central player in modern warfare.  They forgot that one in 1973 as well and had to relearn on the fly.

 

The tank is extremely versatile and certainly can act in a supporting role but for certain conditions and terrain the tank will continue to dominate the battlefield.  The combined arms team of tanks, infantry, and artillery is an ancient concept that works (cavalry, infantry, archers) and there is no indication whatsoever the combined arms team is going away.

 

The assault gun concept was really last used in WWII.  While it was useful for infantry support eventually these vehicles mostly mounted high velocity guns to enable them to be used in the AT role because combat isn't predictable.  They were mostly built by Germany and the USSR because they were cheaper than tanks.  Moreover, the entire concept of the infantry support gun pretty much died out as well.  Tanks are far more useful than assault guns.

 

 

Firstly, don´t worry about my nerve, I´m "SPECOPS" fun, maybe that´s why I´m sometimes more critical of "heavy armor" :)

Back to topic. Western forces are realle good in integrating different weapons and military branches into one system, but many other nations (actually most of users) are unable to use their weapons so effectively. Simply: F-15 + M1 in US is more than F-15 + M1 in SA, that is my point.

 

And last note to your question, Marines vs. Israeli, I´m really unable to determine who has better chance, we can just hope they will never face each other...

@ LB:  This is true, which is why I did not say I'll take a company of infantry + air over a battalion of heavy armor!

 

Terrain is often negated whilst maneuvering:  heavy cover can assist with defensive emplacements but when the tank starts rolling terrain can also force armor into bottlenecks or predictable paths.

 

Weather is still a factor, but an attacking force (such as in the examples you provided) can wait for favorable weather, Apaches and with LongBow systems can pop and drop in pretty much any weather, day or night (which is why I included a mix of air platforms in my scenario), in defensive engagements. 

 

Tanks are still very awesome - but they do have their limitations.  Tanks alone cannot hold terrain, and tanks without air cover cannot maneuver with impunity the way US and Israeli forces have always been able to for the last 40 years.