Any more news about tank replacements?
-
IMO, Crashes in the Urban zone still requires the involvement/presence of MBT spearheading the advance, wanna make it point to repeat myself that Southeast asia nation as are getting more urbanised. soft terrains which i believe you are referring to as jungle and forest and even swamps. These are replaced by tons of concrete and its an undeniable fact its ongoing and continue to be. As more high rise buildings are being constructed each individual in an urban conflict could be potentially fortified with personnel armed with advanced guided missile which almost certainly able to defeat all the existing saf IFV but a direct hit on a MBT will not instantly turn it into a steel coffin it will reverse the situation to our advantage being able to allocated the hidden adversary. The presence of the MBT is an antidote for demoralised troops its also a morale diminishing virus for enemyOriginally posted by Shotgun:Erm, i didn say there is NO room for MBTs to operate. I said there is LITTLE room for MBTs to manuever.
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. -
Which part of Operation Market Gargen do you wish to reference?Originally posted by Shotgun:Erm, i didn say there is NO room for MBTs to operate. I said there is LITTLE room for MBTs to manuever.
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.)
For a vehicle to advance fast over smooth terrain, you need wheels. The tracks of a MBT is to enable it to travel fast across all kinds of terrains - including a rubble strewn road..Advancing on ROADs make avenues of advance predictable, hence MBTs will not be spearheading any advance in any conflict "locally."
Everyone knows that since WW2. But why do they keep putting tanks on the road? Were they ignorant, or is it that sometimes no choice. But at least, when a MBT is on the road - say to protect a convoy - it stands the best chance of surviving any ambush. Though I am NOT stating that it is invincible.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....
The opposite is true. It is very obvious: unarmoured or lightly armoured vehicles would be the ones that are most easily crippled during an ambush and clog up the road. Humvees are about as agile as you can make an armoured vehicle and it is being massacred in ambushes. Whereas a heavily-protected MBT would stand a very good chance of getting away and can shoot back.
In many ambushes, MBTs were actually able to bash through barricades, push crippled vehicles off the road - including other crippled MBTs.
Being ambushed is the fault of the commanders not having good intel or taking measures to clear the area before convoy arrives. Nothing to do with MBT or no MBT.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.
I am totally in agreement that a specialised heavily-armoured urban fighting vehicle is needed, though not necessarily an MBT. And the Israelis were already using Nagmachon or Nagmasho't converted from Centurions in this role. But since we now only have MBTs...
Every weapon has a weakness and gun elevation is also a problem on open terrain. How about Afghansitan? Is that suitable MBT terrain enough? Well, the Mujahideen often ambushed from high ridges where they were safer from Russian tank cannons.
But do you know why the Mujahideen had to climb up on a ridge to avoid tank cannon fire? Cos the MBT was the only thing that stood a chance of firing back during a well-executed ambush. The rest would just be massacred if not for the MBT being able to still keep fighting.
And if you learn from our good friends the Israelis, they have taken to mounting 60mm mortars on their tank turrets for this purpose from lessons in Beirut. This gave more firepower than 40mm GLs.
In the city, you ou don't need a 120mm to shoot at soldiers up on high rise buildings armed with small arms, RPGs, RRs or even ATGMs. Your tank will have GPMG or HMG to deal with that.. And besides, your tank will always be supported by infantry and other vehicles. This is already SOP since WW2.
Our M113 would have 40/50 turrets for this kind of situations. If we start putting 40mm AGLs on our tanks that should also be a very good thing.
However, anything big and menacing in the urban area like enemy IFV, MBT, misc gun platforms etc would be encountered mostly on the ground level where the problem you stated about gun elevation would not a problem.
Actually, it is for the infantry - not MBT or IFV - to do the job. The heavy armour is there to provide support and vice versa.
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.
The MBT is not the perfect answer for all your problems. But it is the best and most versatile platform for now, being able to counter a variety of threats and operate in nearly ALL kinds of environment.
When fitted with a modern 120mm smoothbore that fires missiles, it can even stand a chance against a modern attack helo in the abscence of any other means of air defence.
The MBT is not invincible, but no weapon now in existence is invincible. And the MBT will continue to suffer destruction from the air or from someone armed with a ATGM. But attack helicopters, for example, can also be easily shot down - and they cost much more than an MBT. An Israeli tank once shot down a Syrian attack helicopter with its 105mm tank gun. Does that make choppers obsolete?
But just because you can destroy something don't make it useless in this region. And you keep saying in this region as if SE Asia is SOOOO different from South America, Australia, Middle East..etc etc. There are deserts ALL over Middle East and yet main battles continue to occur in cities involving tanks. -
I refer to the part where the armored forces were supposed rush up a 2 lane highway.
Which was severely delayed because there is very little space for the MBT to advance. If one was to break down, in front, there would be massive chaos at the back trying to make room for the recovery vehicles to tow it OFF anywhere..
Well, I do not know of any existing anti-armor doctrine that doesn't practice shoot an MBT twice. Almost every MBT sighted would be targetted simultaneously by 2 ATGM to ensure its killed. At the end of it, u will just end up with a 60ton road block instead of 30 ton one.
In fact, a faster vehicle has a better chance of surviving simply cos it can RUN behind another building, OUT of LOS of the AT Missile crew.
At the end of all this discussion, what I am saying is that an ordinary MBT has very limited usage in urban terrain. Limited advance avenues in our local terrain. Hence, we don't really need too many of them.
For a heavily armored urban fighting platform, what is needed is a platform that is:
1. Armored to withstand ATGM hits. Not many existing MBTs today can claim to do that.
2. Able to engage with its main weapon at higher elevation, and at lower elevation (for really close work). (If all u are gonna do is rely on the gimpys and HMGs to engage the high angled targets, then might as well call in the BX, or the other vehs with the OWS. .50cal/40mm vs 7.62, i'd take the OWS thank you. )
3. High Top-speed to dash around quickly.
Hmmm.. I think we would have better luck trying to come up with a Gundam Mobile suit. -
For Singapore next light tank I think can stop LAW weapons and 12.7mm rounds gd enough liao.
-
In a modern battlrfield, the MBT provide an cruical edge esp at the very intial phase of punching through the enemies defence line, and create the shock and awe behind the enemies line. The MBT would provide the thrust deep into enemies ground and cut off the enemies retreat and supply route, making way for the Infantry Assualt and Artillery Bombardment.
It would be critical that MBT should be used decisively and swiftly, to create the "suprise WOW" factor at the enemies hearts. It would be critical for our air force to achieve air superiority over the battlefield, in order to restrict enemies air elements (eg attack helio, UAV for guiding artilleries) operation. This will provide the MBT a much better chance of battlefield survival. In addition, the MBT would threaten the enemies mobile and fixed AA sites and attack the radar facility.
Most MBT have "some tricks" to deceive modern 2G anti-tank missile using decoys or smokescreen. It is important that the MBT must be fitted with sensors to detect the incoming missile, so that the MBT can deploy the decoy in time at an optimum distance. It is not a sure kill for ATGM.... esp some MBT are outfitted with extra long range sensor to pick up optical and IR targeting sensor. -
Can our SPIKE defeat this protection device on the PT-91. Is the ATGM the northerners using HJ8 paki copy of Chinese 3G?
-
they employ a very wide variety of anti-armour weapons I believe ..... infact, they have the widest variety of anti-armour weapons in SEA.Originally posted by equlus84:Can our SPIKE defeat this protection device on the PT-91. Is the ATGM the northerners using HJ8 paki copy of Chinese 3G?
a reaction to us of course .... and perhaps a cheaper method too .... as expensive an ATGM is .... it's still cheaper than fielding a comparable armour force to counter another armour force .....
things are changing now it seems .... they are focusing more and more on conventional capabilities .... you got to remember that the northern army of the 80s was still very much geared towards unconventional/internal warfare, hence they had numerous APCs but no proper "tanks" .... now they are looking at augmenting their conventional capabilities and combined arms ops .... remember their rapid reaction brigade ? ....
In the end, remember that they have a totally professional force that has seen much action in the balkans and somalia, as well as numerous "peacekeeping" operations under the UN, they have lots of chaps under arms who had seen combat before ... real combat, not like the SAF patrolling pacified villages in east timor ... we must never rest on our laurels, and be overly cocky ... or underestimate anyone's ability to learn and counter ....... -
let me see...... They use RPG-7, C-90LAw. ATGM they have the Baktar shikar, and Metis-M isit?
-
I just saw the documentary about the top ten tanks from history to now.
Leopard 2 took top place. M1 Abrams took 2nd place. T-72 was 6th or 7th. Centurion was 5th or something.
French LeClerc, British Challenger, Russian T-80 all didn't make the cut. -
i somehow feel that it is slightly biased. thats just my opinionOriginally posted by tvdog:I just saw the documentary about the top ten tanks from history to now.
Leopard 2 took top place. M1 Abrams took 2nd place. T-72 was 6th or 7th. Centurion was 5th or something.
French LeClerc, British Challenger, Russian T-80 all didn't make the cut. -
Geee... which documentary was it? When was it filmed? Did the Merkava make it?
-
I think that every documentary is subjective and is purely a reflection of the author's own views.Originally posted by tvdog:I just saw the documentary about the top ten tanks from history to now.
Leopard 2 took top place. M1 Abrams took 2nd place. T-72 was 6th or 7th. Centurion was 5th or something.
French LeClerc, British Challenger, Russian T-80 all didn't make the cut.
For me, the T-72 would not even deserve a 6th or 7th place. Back in 1981, when the T-72 was just in the export market for a few years, Syrian T-72 tanks fared poorly against the Israeli Merkava Mk I. Large numbers were destroyed.
Similarly, in the Gulf War, the large majority of the Iraqi Army's T-72s were destroyed by American M1A1s and British Challengers. Conversely, only a single M1A1 was taken out by direct T-72 125mm fire.
The T-72 was never destined to be a top-of-the-end tank for the Soviet Army. It was designed to be an inexpensive supplement to the considerably more capable T-64 (Do not confuse with the T-62) and its evolution, the T-80. -
Well, the people who made the documentary weren't novices, that's for sure.
But perhaps their criterions were different. It seems the only rigid rule were that they should have a main gun with a calibre of no less than 75mm.
See if I can remember all the tanks - in no particular order, mind...
- Sherman
- T-34
- Swedish "S"" tank
- Leopard II
- Merkava 1
- Panther
- Abrams M1
- T-72
- Centurion
- Sheridan M551
For example, the Sherman M-4 was tank #10. As you all know, the Sherman was good only because there were so many of them and they were fast and manueverable whereas the German tanks weren't.
The T-72 was given a place cos when it appeared, it scared the western powers. It's pros include an auto-loader, low silhouette, and 125mm smoothbore tank. Its cons were that the auto-loader sometimes loaded the gunner into the breech! And that the ammo stored on board is not protected so that a hit would ensure the tank completely explode.
The Swedish "S" tank was complete crap (IMO) but it was unique and uniquely suited the Swedes' defence doctrine. But completely unproven in battle and the strange concept never adopted by anyone else.
Same too was the Sheridan M551. It had zero armour protection but again breakthrough in being the first air-deployable tank, 152mm gun that can fire both conventional shell and missile etc etc. (This same gun was also used in the M-60A2.)
After all, the title was "world's 10 best tanks" and not "world's best MBT". So it is a fair assessment. Anyway these kinds of listing will always evoke a lot of debate. I would definitely take out the Sheridan, Swedish "S" and put in the Chieftain, M-60A1, Challenger, LeClerc and finally, the WW1 Mother tanks. -
NEW TANKS PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
We will get our new tank maybe a light tank with 105mm gun on mod bionix chasis n for MBT for all we know we already have them not centurion tat for sure.In fact we never have centurion it was a rumour 2 make over think twice .
-
Of COURSE there's no Centurion! We have no armoured vehicles called Centurions in our Army!
*Hint* There may be a Timberwolf or two.... You know the CS players that train in HighTech SingTel building are actually Controlling Mech warriors in a VR environment? Of course that's the reason why we would sponsor them to go overseas in the first place. Enlish first then talk funding....
Back to something more serious. I doubt the BX chassis is suitable for a LT. It's an IFV. The FCS required for a modern L/MT to suit SAF would greatly exceed the space not to include crew survivability. Though i do believe we should look into our OWN armoured vehicles... At least only we know what they can really do.
AI Platoon! Transformers in disguise!
And now back to your daily programmes.... -
Just because you haven't seen one means there isn't any.Originally posted by spartan6:We will get our new tank maybe a light tank with 105mm gun on mod bionix chasis n for MBT for all we know we already have them not centurion tat for sure.In fact we never have centurion it was a rumour 2 make over think twice .
-
Tempest!Originally posted by sigal2k+:Of COURSE there's no Centurion! We have no armoured vehicles called Centurions in our Army! -
When are they finally going to showcase this baby? Although they are being heavily upgraded, they are still getting old! I think its about time we should our fellow Singaporeans during a NDP as the Malaysians have done with their new PT-91. After all, ours is so much older, won't be much of a threatening posture right?
-
U will be surprise tat e bionix is better armoured then most light tanks including e AMX-13 SM-1 or stingray
-
It is common knowledge that we have 80-100 Centurion MBTs in service, most of which are based locally currently.Originally posted by spartan6:We will get our new tank maybe a light tank with 105mm gun on mod bionix chasis n for MBT for all we know we already have them not centurion tat for sure.In fact we never have centurion it was a rumour 2 make over think twice .
63 of these MBTs were acquired in the mid-70s and another batch was acquired in the early 90s.
For 'other' MBTs rumoured to be in service with the SAF, your guess is as good as mine -
Well if u say so, so should it be.
-
I have an uncle whom have trained on the Centurion in Israel and Taiwan in the seventies. So it is not a figment of someone's imagination. Strangely, they don't refer to it as the "Tempest". They call it Centurion, as does JANE's DEFENCE - who also listed Singapore as one of the countries operating these MBTs.Originally posted by spartan6:Well if u say so, so should it be. -
Well in fact im surpise we did not use stingrays i think we did test them
-
Hmm tat intertesting ,thanks