A discussion on WordAffairsBoard on Singapore Armed Forces
-
Skip the lengthy first/second posts, and read the rest of the thread (2 pages) :
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=6460 -
interesting debate they have there.. surprised to see the armoured vehicles part
stated Centurions MBTs (60-100) -
Singapore does operate more modern MBTs, but not on homeland and is classified so no further information can be revealed.
So armour capability when it comes to that isn't a real problem. -
Originally posted by pwnz0r
I agreed. I will very much wish to say what we have got but i can't. Our armoured forces will provide the armoured fist to break down any enemy who is foolish enough to mess around with us. Our armoured forces are easily the best in Southeast Asia.
Singapore does operate more modern MBTs, but not on homeland and is classified so no further information can be revealed.
So armour capability when it comes to that isn't a real problem.
-
Haha many times I have resisted the urge to tell ppl that our tank force is more than just AMX-13s and Centurions... But this is as far as I will reveal too...Originally posted by tankee1981:I agreed. I will very much wish to say what we have got but i can't. Our armoured forces will provide the armoured fist to break down any enemy who is foolish enough to mess around with us. Our armoured forces are easily the best in Southeast Asia. 
-
I believe these are the armoured vehicles in our current army arsenal
Tempest (modernised Centurion)
AMX-10 PAC90 and other versions
M113 modernised with 25 mm Bushmaster or 40 mm AGL
Bionix AFV 28-ton replacement for M113 with 25 mm or 40 mm AGL
Bronco ATTC (All-Tracked Terrain Carrier)
Bv206 ATTC with variants
Terrex Newly developed AV-81, 6x6 AFV
SSPH1 155 mm Computerised Automatic-loading SP gun
SAF dont held armoured vehicle which are operational classified because they simply cant, somehow NSF will be involved and you cant warrant nothing will be revealed and besides singapore is small nation.
Research and Development is in process to replace the Junk (Amx-13) this junk spoils the entire image of SAF 3rd generation transformation -
I completel agree with your POV regarding the AMX-13. It is really embarrassing.Originally posted by Orcishwarrior:I believe these are the armoured vehicles in our current army arsenal
Tempest (modernised Centurion)
AMX-10 PAC90 and other versions
M113 modernised with 25 mm Bushmaster or 40 mm AGL
Bionix AFV 28-ton replacement for M113 with 25 mm or 40 mm AGL
Bronco ATTC (All-Tracked Terrain Carrier)
Bv206 ATTC with variants
Terrex Newly developed AV-81, 6x6 AFV
SSPH1 155 mm Computerised Automatic-loading SP gun
SAF dont held armoured vehicle which are operational classified because they simply cant, somehow NSF will be involved and you cant warrant nothing will be revealed and besides singapore is small nation.
Research and Development is in process to replace the Junk (Amx-13) this junk spoils the entire image of SAF 3rd generation transformation
The Israeli, who never throw anything away - they were using an 105mm gun M4 Sherman up till 1970s Yom Kippur War - ditched the AMX-13 even after upgunning it to 90mm. The thrifty Indians, also completely rid themselves of the AMX-13. Yet, we are still operating them today. They are 50 over years old, and they have been obsolete for 40 of those 50 years.
Along with the M-113, it is a tank that a 0.5HMG with AP rounds or RPG can easily kill - - so they'll be a death trap for the tank crews. No need for enemy to waste ATGM or even a big calibre RR. And I doubt it's gun can stop a modern MBT like the PT-91.
And I am also of the opinion that we do not have any more "secret" MBTs other than the Centurions. Of course, someone please prove me wrong.
We have much, much deadlier weapons that we have openly revealed like SPG, ATGMs. Apaches, subs, stealth frigates etc. In view of this, it seems rather silly to keep secret an MBT in this day and age - especially for a "show-off-ish" armed forces like ours where deterrence is as important as actual capabilities.
Even if we have - say, the Leopard tank - so what? Is any of our neighbours gonna complain? If they haven't complained about our way over-sized airforce, why would they give a toss about any particular tank?
EDIT: Apparently, the amphinious AMX-10 is another piece of crappy equipment. Why are we so in love with these crappy AMX stuff? -
Originally posted by Orcishwarrior:
but this JUNK has trained countless tankees n in the due course, some have converted to bigger brothers...n in this respect, if need be, these same tankees can operate bigger brothers with less difficulty than no training or inadequate training.
SAF dont held armoured vehicle which are operational classified because they simply cant, somehow NSF will be involved and you cant warrant nothing will be revealed and besides singapore is small nation.
Research and Development is in process to replace the [b]Junk (Amx-13) this junk spoils the entire image of SAF 3rd generation transformation [/b]
spoil image? who's? urs? we certainly dun need to bash our own kind and this piece of "crap junk" has detered our enemies long enough. let it rest in peace while we wait for the newer tanks.
cheers! -
AMX-13 - was a good choice to have, it is small, light and very acurate in shooting. Till last year, till malaysia got their new tanks, AMX-13 have nothing worth to shoot at but support role of support fire to take out bunkers and stuff. Even with the Malaysia new tanks, those are for our apache and other newer better tanks, it is still good to have the whole bunch of AMX-13 to support our infantry to take out a bunker or machine gun post, of knock down a few durian to feed our troops.Originally posted by moca:I completel agree with your POV regarding the AMX-13. It is really embarrassing.
The Israeli, who never throw anything away - they were using an 105mm gun M4 Sherman up till 1970s Yom Kippur War - ditched the AMX-13 even after upgunning it to 90mm. The thrifty Indians, also completely rid themselves of the AMX-13. Yet, we are still operating them today. They are 50 over years old, and they have been obsolete for 40 of those 50 years.
Along with the M-113, it is a tank that a 0.5HMG with AP rounds or RPG can easily kill - - so they'll be a death trap for the tank crews. No need for enemy to waste ATGM or even a big calibre RR. And I doubt it's gun can stop a modern MBT like the PT-91.
And I am also of the opinion that we do not have any more "secret" MBTs other than the Centurions. Of course, someone please prove me wrong.
We have much, much deadlier weapons that we have openly revealed like SPG, ATGMs. Apaches, subs, stealth frigates etc. In view of this, it seems rather silly to keep secret an MBT in this day and age - especially for a "show-off-ish" armed forces like ours where deterrence is as important as actual capabilities.
Even if we have - say, the Leopard tank - so what? Is any of our neighbours gonna complain? If they haven't complained about our way over-sized airforce, why would they give a toss about any particular tank?
EDIT: Apparently, the amphinious AMX-10 is another piece of crappy equipment. Why are we so in love with these crappy AMX stuff?
M133 - well even in US there is already arguement on it, in fact in recent test, they show the with the M133A3 version, it can now keep up with the modern tanks and perform much better then stryker. In fact US have to rush a bunch of them to Iraq recently. One think it is still good to have them upgrade to m133a3 with better engine, and protection and new fuel tank. They are still super vehicles to have that can be light and easily transport by C-130. If you arm a M113A3 with tow missiles - it still can take out tanks.
AMX-10 - think the buy came about when Singapore is learning to design its own bionix. And AMX-10 was one of the better design that can swim. Thus the AMX-10 purchase to you maybe crappy, but it may have help us to design our own bionix. -
E AMX-10 marine pac 90 is our only "tank" able 2 support amphinious assualt now, it no crap la
-
bro!! this is a modern warfare its no longer like those days in WW1 or WW2. Where "Whao!! the tanks are here quick run for your life!!" the infantry carrys anti-tank weapons.
Btw singapore has such a long lasting peace since the independent was partially due to the politcal/military backing from the FPDA member ie. britain and australia they played an active role in these early day but the backing was tone down when singapore airforce was then gradually developing herself a credible force to be reckon
Airforce rules
Tell me how are the Amx-13s gonna deter this menace. They could be blow up by anti-tank before it even start aiming or approach a fortified building
.The thin armour gives little protection to the crew and the compartment is like an oven. it will demoralise the troops in real war situation.The prima and fighters will probably be much more effective.
The pathetic looking Amx-13 cant be compared with those technologically advanced modern days "big brother". In terms of crew protection, in terms of computerised targetting, stabliser etc. Whenever i have had a chance to look @ the tank. I cant help it but to ask "singapore has such a sophisticated and refined armed force so much procurement teh F-16, F-15, Bionix, Eurobridge, Sar21, ultimax upgrade, primas, infantry21, apache, spike anti-tank, hellfire, matador,Formidable frigate etc but yet they refuse to replace this 3 decades old junk.
i thought a decent tank is the pride of the army. -
i'm in armour now. obviously tanks are killed by anti-tank missles, duh~
they aren't called ATGMs for nothing. however, it is still quite difficult to hit a moving tank on the first try. takes quite a few shots to get the aim correct, and by then the tank would be alerted to ur presence and take evasive actions.
anyways, dun look down on our tanks. u think MBTs can move on malaysia's jungle roads? however, i do think the gun on the SM1 is a tad weak -
go look up either April or May's JDW report on the Sabra Mk1 or Mk2 upgrade programs for Turkey.There's something intriguing there
-
I completely agree that it is great to have these light tanks to support infantry, but if these light tanks can be easily destroyed by 0.5HMG and RPGs, then it would be a very bad thing for our highly-trained tank crews to be wasted like this.Originally posted by storywolf:AMX-13 - was a good choice to have, it is small, light and very acurate in shooting. Till last year, till malaysia got their new tanks, AMX-13 have nothing worth to shoot at but support role of support fire to take out bunkers and stuff. Even with the Malaysia new tanks, those are for our apache and other newer better tanks, it is still good to have the whole bunch of AMX-13 to support our infantry to take out a bunker or machine gun post, of knock down a few durian to feed our troops.
Can we up-armour the AMX-13?
Forget the Stryker. Tracks are good, wheels are bad IMO.Originally posted by storywolf:M133 - well even in US there is already arguement on it, in fact in recent test, they show the with the M133A3 version, it can now keep up with the modern tanks and perform much better then stryker. In fact US have to rush a bunch of them to Iraq recently. One think it is still good to have them upgrade to m133a3 with better engine, and protection and new fuel tank. They are still super vehicles to have that can be light and easily transport by C-130. If you arm a M113A3 with tow missiles - it still can take out tanks.
And the armour on the Stryker is paper thin due to the need for airborne deployment. So the Stryker, M113 has the same problem with the AMX-13 of being easily destroyed by 0.5HMG and RPG.
Unless you do like the IDF and completely up-armour the hull of the M113, otherwise it is another death-trap. Along with up-armouring the hull of the M113, the IDF also uses ex-MBT hulls of Centurion etc and turn them in super armoured APCs.
Also reference the Merkava series. Engine in front, slow and heavy for a modern MBT. Why? Heavy armour protection for the crew.
What does this tell you about these superb users of armour? Wars have taught them that armour protection is primary importance over and above all other considerations in the IDF.
And the issue with our large force of M113 and AMX-13 and AMX-10PAC is that armour protection is very low.
While it is nice to have something light enough for airborne deployment, this makes the air-deployable AFV an interim platform at best and once situation stabilises, you must bring in the heavier armoured stuff otherwise your crews in these light vehicles will be dogmeat to cheaply available RPG-7s.
And I'm rather skeptical of this air-transportable "power-projection" requirement for armoured vehicles for Singapore.
We are SAF, not USMC. We do not need to "power-project" to far off exotic locations - we shouldn't.
Let other people sort out their own mess. We just need to have a very kilat amphibious landing capability as our main threats are in the neighbourhood.
The reason ST Kinetics is making everything air-transportable is because the main aim of STK is exporting - hopefully - to the USA. For SAF, air transportability of AFVs is a "nice to have", but I think not absolutely necessary.
Crew protection is what SAF is seriously lacking.
True, no really great amphibious tanks had ever been produced even during WW2 when there was so much emphasis. So it must mean one thing: it is very, very difficult to build good amphibious tanks as it is impossible to compromise between "flotability", armour protection and speed in the water.Originally posted by storywolf:AMX-10 - think the buy came about when Singapore is learning to design its own bionix. And AMX-10 was one of the better design that can swim. Thus the AMX-10 purchase to you maybe crappy, but it may have help us to design our own bionix.
Anything being able to do both - ie swim in water and fight on land - usually means it is good at only one or worse: bad at both.
So I think we shouldn't even look at buying another amphibious tank. The concept should be a plaform that will swim the tanks individually onto shore in double quick time. So maybe look at building super agile LST, not another amph tank.
Or look at another way to design amphibious tanks. Most amph tanks are basically armoured vehicles trying to do a boat's job while at sea. Why not turn it upside down and design a armoured boat that can do a tank's job once ashore? -
bro, with all due respect, if any country wanted to invade singapore, y have they not done so? its a known fact that how many tanks we can really call tanks but yet no country tried us...Originally posted by Orcishwarrior:bro!! this is a modern warfare its no longer like those days in WW1 or WW2. Where "Whao!! the tanks are here quick run for your life!!" the infantry carrys anti-tank weapons.
Btw singapore has such a long lasting peace since the independent was partially due to the politcal/military backing from the FPDA member ie. britain and australia they played an active role in these early day but the backing was tone down when singapore airforce was then gradually developing herself a credible force to be reckon
Airforce rules
Tell me how are the Amx-13s gonna deter this menace. They could be blow up by anti-tank before it even start aiming or approach a fortified building .The thin armour gives little protection to the crew and the compartment is like an oven. it will demoralise the troops in real war situation.The prima and fighters will probably be much more effective.
The pathetic looking Amx-13 cant be compared with those technologically advanced modern days "big brother". In terms of crew protection, in terms of computerised targetting, stabliser etc. Whenever i have had a chance to look @ the tank. I cant help it but to ask "singapore has such a sophisticated and refined armed force so much procurement teh F-16, F-15, Bionix, Eurobridge, Sar21, ultimax upgrade, primas, infantry21, apache, spike anti-tank, hellfire, matador,Formidable frigate etc but yet they refuse to replace this 3 decades old junk.
i thought a decent tank is the pride of the army.
i know AMX-13 or SM1 is pathetic both in armour and in survivability in these modern times. then again, how many of our regional "partners" are superior in their hardwares (esp. in the tanks region)?
as for upgrading, Armour has always been taken note of till the last 10yrs or more. look at the modernisation of the Air Force and Navy...they only took place of late and only bcos there's a need to...go back into the history of the Armed Forces and u know that formation of Armour since the early days has been a formidable force (during those times) to be reckon with.
all these are progressions that singapore must take in order for a 3G/4G Army. it is but 1 side of the pride of the Armed Forces to have a decent tank, however light it might be. -
pathetic looking Amx-13 ?
If it got a 76mm cannon that is very acurate and can still take down a bunker and defensive position, it may be the most pathetic looking tank, but when you are on the ground, as a soldier i would still like that pathetic tank to be with me to take out bunkers and stuff, instead of me charging it.
Even if it is old and pathetic, but we can save a lot of money by buying limit mbts, using these amx-13 in supporting roles to take out less armoured targets which amx-13 can still do wonderfully. This way we spend less money, in the mean time also free up modern mbts and apaches to concerntrate on more important targets. -
MBTs are only important if we need to do thunder runs, powerful advances to distract defenders of urban areas while our warm bodies move in.
-
our dear SM1s have add on armour la... but sadly only the old timers know how to fix it up.
-
er...it need not be anti-tank you might wanna increase the equipments just bear in mind this junk arent heavily armoured. "Quite difficult" but the probability is there so no risk should be taken for the sake of the crews.Originally posted by beavan:i'm in armour now. obviously tanks are killed by anti-tank missles, duh~
they aren't called ATGMs for nothing. however, it is still quite difficult to hit a moving tank on the first try. takes quite a few shots to get the aim correct, and by then the tank would be alerted to ur presence and take evasive actions.
anyways, dun look down on our tanks. u think MBTs can move on malaysia's jungle roads? however, i do think the gun on the SM1 is a tad weak
Its an old concept people used to say that MBT are inappropriate in the jungle why dont you look in another prespective. Rapid urbanisation has caused numerous areas once covered with hectares of thick vegetation removed for the development.these urban area is no place for Junk like Amx-13. -
Originally posted by saline
I can't confirm what saline said is correct...but i can confirm with you guys that the SM1 which we used for war is not exactly the same as those which you see on NDP or during training as NSFs.
our dear SM1s have add on armour la... but sadly only the old timers know how to fix it up.
SM1 is indeed very old and close to being obsolete. However, one must note that until recently when Malaysia ordered their PT-91M, our official SM1 tank fleet of 350 are the largest and most capable in this region. Their job is to provided the AI in their M113 Ultra and BX with greater firepower. One can see that they more than capable in this job. Together with our unofficial big brothers (MBTs) we are clearly the strongest armoured force in SEA. Therefore there is little to worry about at this point of time.
Please don't misunderstand me. Having being trained in one myself, i can't wait for its replacement to come! However, one must understand that RnD takes time, mistakes can and will happen during the process. Time is required for testing and evaluation. There is also politics involved, sometimes we cannot reveal a military weapon at certain times. So let us all be patient for SM1's replacement and not condemned it unnecessarily. -
I'm serving as an infantry(LAW) in reservist now.
To be frank, i prefer to be an infantry rather than be the crew in AMX-13.
We dun have much open area in this region for full out MBT vs MBT. Hence, we dun actually need a large no. of them, but, a reasonable no. of MBT is still needed.
Reasons;
To push through fortified defence & also boost some moral into the men on foot, like me.
When I see a AMX-13 rolled passed, I've no fear of confronting it with my LAW, but will be more cautious when a MBT comes by.
Yes, AMX-13 is small & light to move through built-up area, but, an infantry armed with anit-tank weapon is much more effective than it.
Yes, it is time to replace the AMX-13 with newer light tanks & purchase some MBT as well. -
tankees are more afraid of infantry than other tanks.
cos a tank can't hide as well as the infantry men. -
Can we sell the AMX-13 to other countries who may be interested in them? Like East Timor or some rich Somali warlord?
-
Originally posted by Texcoco II
Maybe donation will be a better idea! SM1s are simply too old already and needs heavy maintenance and servicing. Spare parts are also hard to come by. So it will be not economical to pay for old tanks and spend even more on training thye crew and maintaining the vehicles. Timor Leste hardly have the kind of money for this kind of purchase.
Can we sell the AMX-13 to other countries who may be interested in them? Like East Timor or some rich Somali warlord?
I think what they need now are second-hand armoured vehicles on wheels. Firstly,being second-hand they will be cheaper. Wheeled vehicles also need less maintenance as compared to tracked ones. Armoured vehicles will provide much needed protection and mobility for the mainly infantry based Timor Leste army.
Somalia is one of the most chaotic and poorest country in the world. It will be irresponsible for Singapore as a member of the international community to fuel the violence in Somalia. -
scrap them. i think u might get more $$ from that.