Any more news about tank replacements?
-
Originally posted by gary1910:
Most countries in the world are still using so called "old tank", for example IDF just recently retired their own Centurion and still have many M60( upgraded of course) in svc.
(First of all, you are the acknowledged tank expert here, so I am just offering some unsubstantiated opinions
)
The IDF had retired their Centurions from the MBT role, not just recently - but for nearly three decades. During the war in Lebanon in 1982, IDF converted their already obsolescent Centurion MBTs to specialised roles and a heavily-armoured APC version called Nagmashot.
The IDF AMX-13 was made obsolete even earlier - despite being upgraded to 90mm gun. (With a 105mm upgrade also available.) Why? because they were unreliable, had thin armour that even a .5 HMG could penetrate. And as a result suffered very heavy casualties and did not fit with IDF's emphasis on crew survivability - which is the prime objective of all Merkava designs.
First of all, not all the PT-91 Twardy are old tanks that has gone through factory rebuilding. Some are brand new tanks. I don't know if Malaysia got the rebuilds or brand new tanks, though. And apparently, on the new tanks, the armour protection is very impressive.
The most modern tanks in SEA other than what SAF have is the PT-91 which is a actually an upgraded T-72M1( 30 y.o. tanks), so any old tank with proper upgraded FCS, armour, powerpack etc , a old hull could still performed, that is why there are still so many "old tank"around in most armies.
The T-72 was an impressive success to begin with. So you can still upgrade it and it'll function for a couple more decades. But the AMX-13 was a disastrous failure right from the start. Nearly every country that operated it quickly phased it out like Israel and India.
The AMX-13 is not a platform worth any further refurbishment or modernisation. How much further can you go with such a unconventional and strange design? You can't even fit a gun stabilisation thing to the strange turret design which means you have to stop, take aim, and then shoot. It'll be like WW2 all over again.
But isn't that true of any weapons procurement? But that hasn't stopped SAF (or anybody) from buying new equipment. These include submarines, stealth frigates, LSV, UAV, Primus, SAR-21... etc.
Having a new tank in any armed forces is no easy task especially a large qty, let's say qty of 300 tanks, the army will need to train at least 300 set of crews, large group of maintenance specialists, instructors, logistics etc.
Then there is cost incurred above plus the actual cost of modern tank, a light tank today could easily cost at least USD2mil, if it's include modern FCS with TI, BMS , composite armour, APS etc, it could be as high as USD3~5mils!!!!
Therefore it is very large investment and it is not simple decision to make especially when it will be used for at least 2~3 decades.
Don't talk of money cos if you look at SAF procurement - it appears we have very deep pockets.
Why go out and buy F-16, F-15 and phase out A-4 and F-5? Are the A-4 and F-5 not able to fly? Anyone got problem with M-16? No, but still we now got a schmancy new SAR-21.
For some reason, SAF feels constant progress is necessary in all arms - except MBT. The buck stopped there. And we operate museum pieces that are as old as their crew's grandparents.
We are supposed to be operating well over 300 tanks if you count both the AMX-13 and Tempest published figures. So we must have at least 300 sets of well-trained crews at any one time. So getting them trained on another vehicle is a matter of time.Lastly, there is this notion that some believe that tanks are obsolete becos of modern land based ATGM, precision ATGM from attack helos and fighters etc, some army are actually moving away from having any tanks and instead using low cost wheeled fire support AFV etc.
Turn on the TV and you see news footage of Iraq. In the background there is usually a big M1 MBT parked somewhere. Someone forgot to tell the Americans and the Iraqis that heavily-armoured MBTs are obsolete. Light wheeled vehicles like Stryker and Hummer are being massacred by RPGs and homemade bombs.
That is becos it was well demontrated in GW1, where most of the Iraqi armour were actually decimated by fighters and attack helo, way b4 the actual ground war started.
For example the Apaches itself destroyed 800 vehicles including 500 AFVs!!!
One thing tank for fire support role, tank is still needed, but for tank vs tank senario, is it still neccessary????
(Israel, with all her tank experience in urban and non-urban situations, is still going for tracks, heavy armour and tank cannons.)
Iraqi convoys got massacred cos they had no air cover.
Why is it that because an MBT can be destroyed by aircraft, it means an MBT is obsolete?
Nearly everything can be destroyed by enemy aircraft without air cover, including jeeps, trucks, radar, ships, helos, soldiers. Does that make all those things obsolete?I dunno, becos with longer range ATGM as compare with tanks, attack helo etc, it could still decimated a large armoured force, that is why the SAF Gen was saying last year that SAF might be looking having a light tank replacement using missile only, instead of a tank gun!!![/b]
Well, look at the undisputed leader of armour - Israel. I don't see them replacing their 120mm guns with missiles.
The US had a tank in the 70's called the M551 Sheridan. It had a 152mm little tube that fires missiles and conventional rounds. The missile tank concept never quite took off and today, the US continues to use cannons.
The argument was that a tank cannon is still faster, cheaper and more versatile than a missile.
I don't know in detail what the SAF general said. But vehicles - not necessarily a tank - mounted with ATGWs already exist in the SAF inventory including LSV. If you can mount a TOW missile on a bicycle, it'll also be able to kill a tank. So you don't need to waste a tank by arming it with only missiles.
The tank, with its armour protection, is to provide a punch (SAF Mailed Fist emblem) for ground troops and also to destroy enemy tanks when encountered. But if your tank is armed only with missiles, what does it do when it encounters a fortified objective? Fire an ATGM?
And in the process, it must also lend itself to be invulnerable to enemy fire as much as possible. So it needs heavy armour. Just because ATGM can destroy a modern tank doesn't make the tank obsolete. Cos enemy troops aren't always armed with ATGMs as if these things are common currency. What's common however, are infantry rocket-launchers like RPGs or RR like our 84mm. Any tank we get must be able to withstand attacks from these weapons. Otherwise it is about as useful as a pickup truck.
And if enemy aircraft shows up the right thing to do is to make sure of our own air cover. And all armour must righlfully have its own air defence elements like V-200 with RBS-70 etc.
Just because aircrafts can destroy tanks doesn't mean we don't need tanks anymore. One system doesn't make another system obsolete - it just compliments each other. -
Having an missile -only LT is going to place a huge stress on the MSR.
And we might end up having to field more security for supply convoys and in the process, draw down units which should be on the front-line. -
No, Sho't ( Israeli Centurion) only retired in 3.10.2002 , check out this link :Originally posted by tvdog:The IDF had retired their Centurions from the MBT role, not just recently - but for nearly three decades. During the war in Lebanon in 1982, IDF converted their already obsolescent Centurion MBTs to specialised roles and a heavily-armoured APC version called Nagmashot.
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/shot/Shot.html
True, but SAF is facing a different terrain in SEA and as well as perceived threats as compare with IDF.Originally posted by tvdog:The IDF AMX-13 was made obsolete even earlier - despite being upgraded to 90mm gun. (With a 105mm upgrade also available.) Why? because they were unreliable, had thin armour that even a .5 HMG could penetrate. And as a result suffered very heavy casualties and did not fit with IDF's emphasis on crew survivability - which is the prime objective of all Merkava designs.
Even today, (remember the PT-91 are not in svc yet), TNI only have AMX-13s , PT-76s & Scorpions.
Whereas MY only have 26 Scorpions.
So in reality even today, SAF still hold the edge with 350 SM1 plus MBTs against the perceived threats.
As I said perceived threats, currently our perceived threats do not at the moment operate either the same qty or quality that SAF have even you add in the future PT-91.Originally posted by tvdog:First of all, not all the PT-91 Twardy are old tanks that has gone through factory rebuilding. Some are brand new tanks. I don't know if Malaysia got the rebuilds or brand new tanks, though. And apparently, on the new tanks, the armour protection is very impressive.
The T-72 was an impressive success to begin with. So you can still upgrade it and it'll function for a couple more decades. But the AMX-13 was a disastrous failure right from the start. Nearly every country that operated it quickly phased it out like Israel and India.
The AMX-13 is not a platform worth any further refurbishment or modernisation. How much further can you go with such a unconventional and strange design? You can't even fit a gun stabilisation thing to the strange turret design which means you have to stop, take aim, and then shoot. It'll be like WW2 all over again.
What you saying is simply too simplistic!!!!Originally posted by tvdog:But isn't that true of any weapons procurement? But that hasn't stopped SAF (or anybody) from buying new equipment. These include submarines, stealth frigates, LSV, UAV, Primus, SAR-21... etc.
Don't talk of money cos if you look at SAF procurement - it appears we have very deep pockets.
Why go out and buy F-16, F-15 and phase out A-4 and F-5? Are the A-4 and F-5 not able to fly? Anyone got problem with M-16? No, but still we now got a schmancy new SAR-21.
For some reason, SAF feels constant progress is necessary in all arms - except MBT. The buck stopped there. And we operate museum pieces that are as old as their crew's grandparents.
We are supposed to be operating well over 300 tanks if you count both the AMX-13 and Tempest published figures. So we must have at least 300 sets of well-trained crews at any one time. So getting them trained on another vehicle is a matter of time.
Those in tank unit not only need to learn to operate the tanks espacially all those modern FCS, BMS etc, driving, command and even simple maintenance!!!
In fact, it will take years with so many units.Originally posted by tvdog:Turn on the TV and you see news footage of Iraq. In the background there is usually a big M1 MBT parked somewhere. Someone forgot to tell the Americans and the Iraqis that heavily-armoured MBTs are obsolete. Light wheeled vehicles like Stryker and Hummer are being massacred by RPGs and homemade bombs.
(Israel, with all her tank experience in urban and non-urban situations, is still going for tracks, heavy armour and tank cannons.)
Iraqi convoys got massacred cos they had no air cover.
Why is it that because an MBT can be destroyed by aircraft, it means an MBT is obsolete?
Nearly everything can be destroyed by enemy aircraft without air cover, including jeeps, trucks, radar, ships, helos, soldiers. Does that make all those things obsolete?
NO, but MBTs cost 2~3 times more than a wheeled tank destroyers!!!!
And since both MBTs and wheeled tank destroyers could easily destroyed by both land based ATGM and ATGM from the air, then which is more cost effective to have????
That is why some armys are going toward wheeled tank destroyers !!!!Originally posted by tvdog:
I did not say that tank guns are obsolete, it is from one SAF General that said that SAF might be opting for missile based vehicle for SM1 replacement which is one the configuration SAF is looking at.
Well, look at the undisputed leader of armour - Israel. I don't see them replacing their 120mm guns with missiles.
The US had a tank in the 70's called the M551 Sheridan. It had a 152mm little tube that fires missiles and conventional rounds. The missile tank concept never quite took off and today, the US continues to use cannons.
The argument was that a tank cannon is still faster, cheaper and more versatile than a missile.
I don't know in detail what the SAF general said. But vehicles - not necessarily a tank - mounted with ATGWs already exist in the SAF inventory including LSV. If you can mount a TOW missile on a bicycle, it'll also be able to kill a tank. So you don't need to waste a tank by arming it with only missiles.
The tank, with its armour protection, is to provide a [b]punch (SAF Mailed Fist emblem) for ground troops and also to destroy enemy tanks when encountered. But if your tank is armed only with missiles, what does it do when it encounters a fortified objective? Fire an ATGM?
And in the process, it must also lend itself to be invulnerable to enemy fire as much as possible. So it needs heavy armour. Just because ATGM can destroy a modern tank doesn't make the tank obsolete. Cos enemy troops aren't always armed with ATGMs as if these things are common currency. What's common however, are infantry rocket-launchers like RPGs or RR like our 84mm. Any tank we get must be able to withstand attacks from these weapons. Otherwise it is about as useful as a pickup truck.
And if enemy aircraft shows up the right thing to do is to make sure of our own air cover. And all armour must righlfully have its own air defence elements like V-200 with RBS-70 etc.
Just because aircrafts can destroy tanks doesn't mean we don't need tanks anymore. One system doesn't make another system obsolete - it just compliments each other.[/b]
My opinion is that new LT must be at least RPG proof. -
As a very old tankee, I believe sooner or later the AMX13 will be replace by another light tank (maybe BX with 105 or 120 main gun or with missile as well if they can fit that in). Just wait patiently.
If i guess correctly, SM1 is never intend to go aginst any MBT or PT91 but to serve as support fire against APC or light vehicles. You must be mad if you sent SM1 with such light armour to punch through enemy front line.
Our rumoured Centurions should be the one to go against any MBT. But even with any extensive upgrade or ERA(like the IDF ), our old Centurions will still be sitting ducks against current generation of Anti-tank weapon like Spike with Tandem (Double) Warhead which allows for increased penetration, especially against reactive armor, and enables the second warhead to penetrate the target. There are others missiles with such warhead around in our neighbouring countries.
SAF should ready look into newer MBT or upgrades(whole turret) with active defence system (think not mature yet and expensive) inorder for us to have a counter against PT91 if SAF have not already done so. (It will be a secret we never know like the Centurions after 30 over years and still not seen in Singapore)
We will still need a tank(MBT) to go against PT91 and can also survive in today's anti tank missile environment. Do not rely only on Apache or airforce to do the job as tanks are still needed to punch through any defence and secured ground with infantry like our armour logo (Armoured Fist) -
My bet is that it's still 2 to 3 years time before the SAF asks for RfP. The apaches are bought with 1 thing in mind, to destroy tanks. That is a truth. The tanks are only for fire support role for the infantry.
Nobody knows for sure what SAF are replacing the SM1 with, so there's no need for u all to say this and that. All i can say is the things they buy complement each other. Whether buying MBT or light tanks, wheeled or tracked, it's up to them.
We are not the ones making decision, and we dunnoe their criteria in choosing equipment. The SAF procure unit (DSTA) is known to be fussy (that's good). We just have to be patient. Be it wheeled or tracked, I will be most happy to see new vehicles parading at NDP, not the junks. -
you are too hot headed. relax. this is a public forum. as long as people do not disclose confidential materials, why stop this discussion?Originally posted by kelong70:My bet is that it's still 2 to 3 years time before the SAF asks for RfP. The apaches are bought with 1 thing in mind, to destroy tanks. That is a truth. The tanks are only for fire support role for the infantry.
Nobody knows for sure what SAF are replacing the SM1 with, so there's no need for u all to say this and that. All i can say is the things they buy complement each other. Whether buying MBT or light tanks, wheeled or tracked, it's up to them.
We are not the ones making decision, and we dunnoe their criteria in choosing equipment. The SAF procure unit (DSTA) is known to be fussy (that's good). We just have to be patient. Be it wheeled or tracked, I will be most happy to see new vehicles parading at NDP, not the junks.
while its true that DSTA may be planning on buying something (armor) still it has been far too long to come up with something to replace the current piece of 'junk', i quote from you. if its junk, why keep it for so long?
anyway, being also a tank commander, i believe our current armor can withhold and perhaps deter some attackers, if any from coming in. with our sheer numbers, its a sizable force to be reckon with. just do not underestimate what singapore armor can do.
guys, our MBT, LT or whatever DSTA is coming up with will be the best yet ever. patience. -
The tank, with its armour protection, is to provide a punch (SAF Mailed Fist emblem) for ground troops and also to destroy enemy tanks when encountered. But if your tank is armed only with missiles, what does it do when it encounters a fortified objective? Fire an ATGM?
i think u missed out our FH-2000s, FH-88s, LWHs n Primus. -
Originally posted by Moonstriker:
If you're a tankee wouldn't you want to be able to blow it up yourself?
[b]The tank, with its armour protection, is to provide a punch (SAF Mailed Fist emblem) for ground troops and also to destroy enemy tanks when encountered. But if your tank is armed only with missiles, what does it do when it encounters a fortified objective? Fire an ATGM?
i think u missed out our FH-2000s, FH-88s, LWHs n Primus.[/b] -
yes but you will still need the boots on the ground
Originally posted by Moonstriker:
[b]The tank, with its armour protection, is to provide a punch (SAF Mailed Fist emblem) for ground troops and also to destroy enemy tanks when encountered. But if your tank is armed only with missiles, what does it do when it encounters a fortified objective? Fire an ATGM?
i think u missed out our FH-2000s, FH-88s, LWHs n Primus.[/b] -
quote:Originally posted by Moonstriker:
The tank, with its armour protection, is to provide a punch (SAF Mailed Fist emblem) for ground troops and also to destroy enemy tanks when encountered. But if your tank is armed only with missiles, what does it do when it encounters a fortified objective? Fire an ATGM?
i think u missed out our FH-2000s, FH-88s, LWHs n Primus.
If you're a tankee wouldn't you want to be able to blow it up yourself?
-During the 1982 Falkland war, Mlian ATGM was used to knocked out Argentinian's fortificaion (MG nest etc) while the infantry units attacked. After witnessing its effectiveness SAF introduced it to replaced the 106mm RR
The destructve power of a ATGM warhead is the same if not more than any main gun rounds. The real weakness of ATGM over main guns is the high cost per round and possibly low rate of fire.
Using ATGM to take out fortified stronghold happens all the time.
-FH-2000, FH-88, Primus, LWHs are artillery guns.
Artillery bombardment on fortified positions have limited results.
(Part of the reason why position is fortified is to protect oneself from artillery shelling).After an intense shelling on a fortified position, one probably will suffer only about 10% lossess(therefore the term 'softening the position'). DICM cargo round will increase that %. Accurate flat trajectory direct fire is required to take out MG bunkers n therefore the need for tank guns or guided missiles -
Im not sure whether the same deadly flaw of the original T-72's design is still on the PT-91M. According to one tank analyst expert on a recent Discovery Channel Programme(The Greatest Ever), i remember clearly that he says the one thing he doesn't like about the T-72 is that its main gun ammo are not stored within its armoured structure. As a result, it was ranked 7th out of 10.
-
I think the T-72 design flaw can also be found in PT-91.
-
Wah.... back to the same old topic on why we havent replace the SM-1.
I suspect they would be looking at a light armored vehicle capable of supporting the AI, rather than a "light tank." Tracked vehicles that have the punching power to blow holes in walls for infantry to breach. Vehicles that suit both urban and jungle/tropical terrain.
I think its quite natural for them to be slow and picky about such a huge replacement quantity.
Currently, the best way to kill a tank is with TOP-attack munitions. And if we can mount spike launchers on this new light tank, why not? An APFSDS isn't necessarily the silver bullet that would kill tanks.
There isn't much room to operate MBTs in our region. They'd have very limited operation areas, hence it would be easier to locate them and destroy them with indirect fire. Thats assymetric warfare.
Chances, we are not gonna get into an armored battle where tank main guns will square off against tank main guns. -
It is true that our SM1s are old platforms in even older bodies.
However i personally feel that it is our policy to actually go using IFVs. If you guys have seen the ARMY adverts on TV you would realised that the Armour part is showing the main Punch using the Bionix and mainly those with the cannon....the SM1s are .....lets just say not part of the picture. So it is likely that we field IFV based vehicles as the main force. This is taking into the fact that IFVs we have are slightly quicker than the SM1. Thus, SM1s can be considered as fire-support.
I belief we are going to have a modern tank that is of higher survivability and capablilities. It is just that while we are in this gap...at least we have tank crews that are semi trained on a main-gun platform rather than none at all... It will be easier for the crew to adapt/upgrade to a new platform than to only start tank-crew training with the new tanks that may pop out only in the future. -
For all you guys out there...
Just wait and see and all your wishes would come true!
It's not for me to say or advise, but we already have the capabilities and inventory for such equipments in the SAF Armour...
Just stay tuned! -
Its not an issue about me not imagining it. But on another forum I had mentioned that the Terrex was supposedly able to mount a 105mm gun but another forumer said its unlikely 'cos the recoil will flip the Terrex. So its based on what other "experts" said, not just merely on my imagination.Originally posted by tiggersgd:that's bcos you can't imagine a 105/120mm gun on a LT doesn't mean its not possible. -
Hehe... another follower of the "no room for MBT" camp.Originally posted by Shotgun:There isn't much room to operate MBTs in our region. They'd have very limited operation areas, hence it would be easier to locate them and destroy them with indirect fire. Thats assymetric warfare.
Another lesson from the Israelis...
What did the Israelis use in Beirut - a crowded city?
MBT.
"During the Lebanon War (1982) Merkava Mk. 1 tanks were the spearhead of most of the armoured columns. On the coastal road, Merkava Mk. 1 tanks led the forces from Rosh Hanikra, through the dense RPG and SAGGER armed PLO positions on the coastal road, north to Sidon , Damur, and Beirut . Clashing with anti-tank weapons at a distance of only a few meters during roadside ambushes, the tanks suffered many hits, with little effect on their performance. Some partially penetrated the armour protection but could not harm the crew. The casualties suffered by the Merkava Mk. 1 crews in this area were also shrapnel and small arms fire, inflicted outside the tanks."
Why didn't the Israelis use something lighter, smaller and more manueverable in the FIBUA nightmare of Beirut? They definitely didn't lack choices as they have a very large choice of armour platforms to choose from.
In fact, they needed the power and armour protection of MBT so much that they converted Centurions and captured T-55 hulls into APC.
Compared to Beirut, Singapore is a heaven for MBT with good wide roads and highways everywhere. No room for MBT? Don't kid yourself. Just make sure the MBTs that show up on our roads are ours and not someone else's.
This is like the British saying during WW2 that tanks cannot operate in this part of the world
Everyone is saying that a chopper can destroy a MBT. A ATGM can destroy an MBT. etc etc As if these things are so commonly available like every platoon has one. Or that you can always count on an Apache or F-16 showing up.Chances, we are not gonna get into an armored battle where tank main guns will square off against tank main guns.
Make sure our enemies understands that as well. -
I have to agree with the chap ... as the peninsula, our most likely battle ground, opens up, more and more terrain becomes feasible for MBTs ....
in anycase, I don't think the "soft grounds not suitable for MBTs" theory ... why then, do we have bridges, AVLBs, and CEVs, which are essentially M-60 MBT spin-offs ? .....
we definitely need MBTs ... and this won't be a case of "they've got new toys, I want them too" syndrome, the AMX-13s are turning into an embaressment, I cringe when I saw them during NDP, sounding so rickety and ancient, they need to be replaced, badly ....
I have to agree with tvdog ... an MBT is an excellent platform for urban warfare, something the Israelis discovered (the lessons of which they translated into the merkava series), and the Americans are re-learning now (that's why they were rushing more M1s over to Iraq sometime back, IVBEDs and roadside bombs can chew up Humvees and APCs, but you need monster bombs to take out an M1 (and only if you're lucky) ... -
The Americans led many of their allies down the road of going for a light vehicle like the Stryker in favour of tanks. The Canandians and some European allies have also gone whole hog down this road.
But now the Stryker is facing so much problems in Iraq. They have to do multiple modifications just to make it safe from RPG attacks. And these additions are making the Stryker overweight and cumbersome. So much lightweight, fast and manueverability. I saw one picture where they added an all round fence to the vehicle to defeat RPG. Looked like a joke.
And wheels cannot beat tracks in overcoming obstacles like rubble, ditches etc
Many people now acknowledge that the Stryker replacing M1 is a serious mistake. But because some important generals have staked their reputation on the Stryker, the poor troops have no choice but to continue to make do with it. -
Please lah , you guys talked as if there is no MBT in SAF????
SAF have in a way two separate "armoured forces", there is armoured forces in the CADs which is more like a light mechanised forces( as of western standard) with light tanks and IFVs which is disclosed to be having weight of 30 tons and below and width 3m , that is SAF special requirement, why ???
Well, no matter how urbanised is our northern neighbour, she is still the world major producers of Palm oil and rubbers, i.e. plenty of palm and rubber tree plantations!!!!
As for the other armoured forces , your guess is good as mine!!!
-
They needed the strykers because they were air deployable i believe. Basically they could be moved around much faster then tanks which had to be shipped in.Originally posted by tvdog:The Americans led many of their allies down the road of going for a light vehicle like the Stryker in favour of tanks. The Canandians and some European allies have also gone whole hog down this road.
But now the Stryker is facing so much problems in Iraq. They have to do multiple modifications just to make it safe from RPG attacks. And these additions are making the Stryker overweight and cumbersome. So much lightweight, fast and manueverability. I saw one picture where they added an all round fence to the vehicle to defeat RPG. Looked like a joke.
And wheels cannot beat tracks in overcoming obstacles like rubble, ditches etc
Many people now acknowledge that the Stryker replacing M1 is a serious mistake. But because some important generals have staked their reputation on the Stryker, the poor troops have no choice but to continue to make do with it. -
Every time a tank topic comes out, someone would parrot the line: "no room for MBT in this region".Originally posted by gary1910:Please lah , you guys talked as if there is no MBT in SAF????
I am merely saying how ridiculous this sounds. And I am quoting examples why this statement is silly... if that's alright with you?
I don't know where they heard this from and why they keep repeating it in spite of the facts that Singapore has Tempest. and Malaysia now also has PT-91.
If one day we are all speaking Bahasa Melayu and we see PT-91 drive down Orchard Road for National Day on August 30th, some people will still be saying "...no room for MBT in this region" -
Actually just by search on google, you can find many references where (i believe) are of Shermans success in Vietnam. MBTs can operate in jungle terrain. just not Upslope with trees i suppose. They can travel pretty well on gradient slopes and still maintain their fighting capability. Besides crew survivability is a neccessity of any modern combat force. Lose a tank? Let them hop into another one. Lose the crew? Where to train another replacement in such a short time.
It is never a problem of ground pressure cause the engineers have HUGE mega tanks needed for clearing mines and where armour go they have to go too... -
Well, with the great investment in our Air Force and Navy, I suppose we are opting for a "shock & awe" tactic where we scare and stun the living s*hit outta our foes. Bomb them like hell before sending in boots to flush them out and occupy. And this results in some people feeling we have no room for MBTs.
However, it must be understood that SAF may not be operating MBTs at the moment due to the fact that their aim is to race forward and towards the enemy in highly mobile vehicles which move so fast that it actually surprises and overwhelm's the foes ability to react and thus limiting the usefulness of MBTs. However, personally I still feel that the SAF should operate MBTs, the Leopard,Merkavas would be good choices given their crew survivalibility and speed. Though it would have been easier to take out MBTs with Aircrafts/Choppers, this is not a major factor, as having MBTs and having a heli-borne force which can take out armour is actually complementary to each other. They are meant to work with each other for the greater good.
Just my 2 cents. -
Erm, i didn say there is NO room for MBTs to operate. I said there is LITTLE room for MBTs to manuever.Originally posted by tvdog:Make sure our enemies understands that as well.
Examine Operation Market Garden to understand what I mean.
For MBTs to advance FAST, there must be either smooth terrain, (which we dun really have here. Or roads.)
Advancing on ROADs make avenues of advance predictable, hence MBTs will not be spearheading any advance in any conflict "locally." Instead, advancing on these roads, would be lighter and smaller vehicles that can quickly disperse OFF the roads when required and can still fight. Otherwise, u'll just have traffic jams all the way....
In the urban environment, not ANY tom d!ck or harry MBT can operate. You need highly specialised Urban fighting MBT. What is the major problem with MBTs in the urban environment? The damn gun elevation limit.
A lot of people like to quote the current Iraq conflict, citing that the light vehicles casualties to be more than the MBTs downed. But it is the units like the Strykers along with their accompanying AI thats dashing down the streets in pursuit of insurgents, NOT the mighty M1A2s. The M1A2s stand outside the urban limits and only move in to provide fire support, OF COURSE they take less casualties lar. So why don't they move the M1A2s in to slug it out with the insurgents, or with the then Iraqi troops in the city? Cos they CANNOT. Unless that is, they got the green light to demolish every building in sight...
For a plain ol MBT, that is not equipped for urban combat, it can only serve as a fire support platform. Move in, blast the fortification, or position, back out and let the IFVs do their job.
For our local region, its either urban area, or jungle, or hills. Otherwise, its soft terrain. There is very little room for MBT's to roll around.