I read with some interest the letters Tanks to fight what war? and Think before buying those tanks concerning Malaysia's purchase of 64 T-91 tanks from Poland.

I, too, question the wisdom of purchasing the tanks, but for different reasons.

Malaysia does need to purchase a modern mobile battle tank of some sort; the only armour that Malaysia currently has are either light tanks more suited to reconnaissance roles rather than engaging other tanks (Scorpions) or infantry fighting vehicles (from Turkey and South Korea, among others), and an assortment of wheeled armoured vehicles (Sibmas, Saracen et cetera).

I disagree with the argument that ground forces are irrelevant given Malaysia's mountainous and maritime geographical characteristics. While these may decrease the capacity for manouevre on the ground while increasing the relative importance of naval power, war is still largely won or lost through gaining or losing territory.

This can only be achieved with ground forces. Naval and air power cannot, either alone or in conjunction with each other, take or hold significant bits of land against opposition in the absence of land power. And, mountains or no mountains, tanks are still the primary source of land power.

My criticism stems from what was actually bought. By buying Polish, Malaysia has added to the long list of countries from which it has purchased military hardware — Britain (two Corvettes plus other ships, Hawk aircrafts, Scorpion light tanks and assorted other vehicles), US (F-18, F-5 jets, Sikorsky helicopters), Russia (Mig-29 jets, helicopters), France (helicopters), Belgium (Sibmas armoured cars), Turkey (IFVs), South Korea (IFVs), and Austria (small arms).

This list is not exhaustive and some of the items listed here may have been retired, but surely integrating these items and maintaining them must be a nightmare. Added to that, by spreading its purchases across many suppliers Malaysia has diluted whatever bargaining power that it may have had if it had stuck to one or two major suppliers.

Added to that, the T-91 is basically an evolutionary development of an ageing Russian design, the T-72. Recent combat experience (Middle East against Israeli armour, Chechnya against irregular troops armed mostly with Russian equipment, 1991 Gulf war against American designs) has called into question the combat effectiveness of this design.

Having said that, perhaps Malaysia got a good deal for the tanks (US$4.5 million per tank seems like a good deal to me) and has the skill to integrate them with its existing forces. The question now is, from whom will Malaysia buy submarines?