Taiwan’s first batch of M1A2T tanks, a specialized version of the US-made M1A2 Abrams, arrived at the Port of Taipei this month. Approved for sale in 2019 during the administration of then-US president Donald Trump, the deal includes 108 tanks and related equipment at a total cost of NT$40.5 billion (US$1.24 billion). The delivery schedule comprises three phases: 38 tanks this year, 42 next year and the remaining 28 in 2026. The M1A2T is equipped with 120mm smoothbore guns, capable of penetrating 850mm-thick armor, and incorporates advanced hunter-killer targeting systems. This acquisition represents Taiwan’s first significant upgrade in armored vehicles since it received M60A3 tanks in 1994.
When the deal was sealed in 2019, the Ministry of National Defense and military officials praised the tanks for their firepower, mobility and ability to engage targets from elevated positions, arguing that they outperform China’s Type 99 and Type 63A tanks. In theory, the M1A2Ts significantly enhance Taiwan’s anti-landing defense capabilities in alignment with the country’s multilayered line of defense. While Taiwan emphasizes its focus on sea and air defenses in a potential conflict, the M1A2T is expected to provide critical ground firepower in countering a Chinese land invasion.
Despite their advanced capabilities, the M1A2Ts come with significant challenges, particularly for Taiwan’s defensive requirements. Tanks are developed with specific operational contexts in mind, and the Abrams was originally designed for tank-on-tank battles on open plains. Over four decades of use in conflicts such as Iraq and Kosovo, the M1 Abrams has undergone substantial upgrades, but these have also increased its weight and cost. The first-generation models weighed about 50 tonnes, but the current versions can reach up to 70 tonnes, requiring specialized transport equipment that might not be readily available in Taiwan.
The M1A2s are also among the most expensive in the world, not only in procurement, but also in maintenance and operational costs. Unlike diesel-powered tanks, the M1A2 uses a 1500 horsepower gas turbine engine fueled by gasoline or jet fuel. While this engine offers faster performance and quieter operation, it consumes significantly more fuel, limiting the tank’s range and complicating logistics, especially under a potential Chinese blockade. Taiwan’s terrain adds further complications. The nation’s rugged topography, limited plains, dense water networks and bridges not designed to withstand such heavy loads limit the mobility and effectiveness of the M1A2Ts. In urban warfare, which is likely in a Chinese invasion scenario, the M1A2Ts’ size and weight make them less maneuverable and more vulnerable to ambushes.
Taiwan’s strategic focus should prioritize asymmetric capabilities — mobile anti-ship missiles, fast attack boats, tactical combat and autonomous kamikaze drones and defensive mines — over large and expensive platforms. These systems are better suited to exploit Taiwan’s geographic advantages and counter China’s numerical and technological superiority.
The M1A2T tanks might be a modern touch to Taiwan’s aging tank fleets and symbolize its commitment to strengthening its defense capabilities. However, their long-term value must be assessed within the broader context of Taiwan’s unique challenges and strategic goals. Rather than matching China weapon-for-weapon,
Taiwan’s defense strategy should emphasize agility, cost-efficiency, adaptability and sustainability to ensure it remains prepared for any potential threat.
Harun Talha Ayanoglu is a research associate at the Taiwan Center for Security Studies.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS