SG terrain suitable for MBT?
-
Inevitably, in a discussion about tanks in Singapore, someone would mention that Singapore (and Malaysian) terrain is NOT suitable for MBT.
Some of the reasons cited is mud, jungle, plantations, bridges etc.
The most absurd argument is mud in SG, as the tank WAS INVENTED TO HANDLE MUD. As if our mud is different from their mud.
Personally, I think this is all rubbish as we have had the Centurion MBT for the last 30 years.
But can someone from the armour corps please determine if our terrain is indeed unsuitable for MBT? Did they tell you at armour school that SG is not suitable for MBT?
To give everyone a better idea for discussion here are the specs for both Centurion and AMX-13.
Centurion specs:
Length: 8.29 m
Width: 3.39 m
Height: 2.94 m
Weight: 56,000 kg
AMX-13 specs:
Length: 6.36 m (with gun forwards)
Width: 2.51 m
Height: 2.3 m
Weight: 15,000 kg (combat weight) -
If we have 2 fight on our ground then liao lo
-
Well there is no right or wrong answer to that . Because the whole singapore or malaysia terrain is different at different parts and season.
Look at singapore and malaysia, if urban area, there is away roads, thus MBT is alway suitable. But if you go into the jungle where unpave road, that does not mean the MBT cannot handle it.
But sometime if raining season + soft ground, that may be a problem to MBT.
The answer is MBT is alway suitable. But just when, where and how you deploy it , that make it suitable or not . But sometime having a big gun does help when you need it. -
Ya loh if any MBT is use in Singapore then we're screwed ....wad does it matter if we can use it.Originally posted by spartan6:If we have 2 fight on our ground then liao lo -
I was thinking of this question.......... Since MBT can't than the soft muddy terrains of ASEAN nations then could getting a MBT that tips the 40ton scale do the trick? Is this wad Malaysia is doing or thinking?
Since getting a MBT of China or Russian made is usually lighter than that of the European counterparts, could they score better in mobility in this region. For example, China's T62 light tank and the T63A amphibious tank.
The T62 is a scald down version of the T55, at 33tons but the weight still hangs above the SAF 30tons magical number. But lets say we do face opforce with this type of diluted MBT we would face some problems.
No doubt the T62 being heavier, it has a bigger calibre gun 105mm and has definitely better armour protection that the "tankette" scorpion, AMX-13. Does this mean we may lose out?
Wad are ur views? -
i think alot of it depends on the size of the tracks.If the tracks are wide enuf then soft mud would be no problem.case in point the T34's in russia during the spring thaw.The mud there i dare say is much worse.Originally posted by equlus84:I was thinking of this question.......... Since MBT can't than the soft muddy terrains of ASEAN nations then could getting a MBT that tips the 40ton scale do the trick? Is this wad Malaysia is doing or thinking?
Since getting a MBT of China or Russian made is usually lighter than that of the European counterparts, could they score better in mobility in this region. For example, China's T62 light tank and the T63A amphibious tank.
The T62 is a scald down version of the T55, at 33tons but the weight still hangs above the SAF 30tons magical number. But lets say we do face opforce with this type of diluted MBT we would face some problems.
No doubt the T62 being heavier, it has a bigger calibre gun 105mm and has definitely better armour protection that the "tankette" scorpion, AMX-13. Does this mean we may lose out?
Wad are ur views? -
After following the discussion about MBTs in our context, I have something on my mind to express. I feel that the direction at which the discussions are going is pretty one-sided. Its always about MBTs, and not an armoured fighting group as a whole. For Singapore, how will MBTs in the orbat affect the overall outcome of a battle? Maybe that is a better way of looking at the "usefulness" of MBTs in the region.
-
The tropical terrain in the SEA is indeed not as ideal for tank warfare as comapred to open plains and deserts but don't worry we have our ways to avoid and counter this muddy problem.
-
You're right, this discussion is one-sided. This is because we are not here to discuss tactics or strategy. If I'm not wrong, we are already operating Amroured Battle Groups, with our vast variety of different types of combat vehicles.Originally posted by EXCO:After following the discussion about MBTs in our context, I have something on my mind to express. I feel that the direction at which the discussions are going is pretty one-sided. Its always about MBTs, and not an armoured fighting group as a whole. For Singapore, how will MBTs in the orbat affect the overall outcome of a battle? Maybe that is a better way of looking at the "usefulness" of MBTs in the region.
But the only thing that raises the most question is the MBT.
IMO the fighting capabilities of the MBT vs Light Tanks does not require any discussion. MBT is better, period. No light tank can hide or outrun a RPG. Our AMX-13 can be easily defeated by 25mm cannon or even a .5 firing SLAP rounds.
On the other hand, an MBT might still survive a RPG hit.
Secondly, some people are still doubtful as to whether we have an MBT. I'm in no doubt we in the form of the Centurion.
And thirdly, which is what this thread is about, is the frequently heard but completely unfounded argument that out terrain is not suitable for MBTs.
I am just wondering if this is what SAF armour school teaches? Or if this is just one of those rumours that seems to find favour with a lot of people. -
Not suitable for "tank warfare" in which context? Desert Storm, Yom Kippur War, WW2 Eastern Front etc?Originally posted by tankee1981:The tropical terrain in the SEA is indeed not as ideal for tank warfare as comapred to open plains and deserts but don't worry we have our ways to avoid and counter this muddy problem.
But isn't that a rather narrow view of tank warfare especially from a tankee, with all due respects?
Most tank battles are not of the grandiose scale open plains and desert type.
Most tank battles are not even written down in history as tank battles cos they were fought in support of infantry. They take place in villages, towns, forest, jungles, cities all over the world from WW1 to present.
Nearly all Indochinese countries like Thailand, Burma, Cambodia and Vietnam field MBTs.
And we all know these countries have mud and jungle just like us.
-
the thing is this:
SAF believes MBT are suitable for our terrain.
If operating 70 Centurion since the 1970's is not enough to substantiate the point, then what is? -
Tinking of having MBTs? Important question to ask yourself: terrain suitable??????? Most Most Important question is........whether your enemies terrain suitable for MBTs to operate or not.........YOUR MBTs to operate
Think you driving your brand new 69 TON M1A2 Abrams 62 TON Leopard 2A6 62 TON Challenger2 65 TON Merkava Mk4 crossing a bridge n suddenly.........it breaks N send u falling to your death Or in some areas u cracking up the roads(making it unuseable for the rest of the vehicles) n u can't use flyovers n tunnels(cos u too big/tall).....Then u will be thinking IF ONLY I HAVE MY LIGHT TANK RIGHT NOW 
But then LIGHT TANK armour can't make it lor.....So best to have a LIGHTER WEIGHT N SMALLLER SIZE MBT so that u can use almost anywhere....Cos they can support your MBTs...Almost like WW2 Jap....Mud can't operate? Wat BULL !!!!! Tanks r built for mud......If u say MBT can't swim fair enough....Jungle can...If u look at russian ACE asst u will know....Don't tink so BRITISH 
...Look at viet war u will understand
N if one day we use MBTs in Singapore terrain then it will be over for us.....We will die die use in other ppl terrain first........... -
Originally posted by papabear20046:
But what's your point, after so much rambling?
Tinking of having MBTs? Important question to ask yourself: terrain suitable??????? [b]Most Most Important question is........whether your enemies terrain suitable for MBTs to operate or not.........YOUR MBTs to operate Think you driving your brand new 69 TON M1A2 Abrams 62 TON Leopard 2A6 62 TON Challenger2 65 TON Merkava Mk4 crossing a bridge n suddenly.........it breaks N send u falling to your death Or in some areas u cracking up the roads(making it unuseable for the rest of the vehicles) n u can't use flyovers n tunnels(cos u too big/tall).....Then u will be thinking IF ONLY I HAVE MY LIGHT TANK RIGHT NOW But then LIGHT TANK armour can't make it lor.....So best to have a LIGHTER WEIGHT N SMALLLER SIZE MBT so that u can use almost anywhere....Cos they can support your MBTs...Almost like WW2 Jap....Mud can't operate? Wat BULL !!!!! Tanks r built for mud......If u say MBT can't swim fair enough....Jungle can...If u look at russian ACE asst u will know....Don't tink so BRITISH ...Look at viet war u will understand
N if one day we use MBTs in Singapore terrain then it will be over for us.....We will die die use in other ppl terrain first...........
[/b]
Do you have evidence that all bridges in US, Europe and Middle East are unbreakable?
Do you have evidence that all roads won't "crack up" in US, Europe and Middle East?
Do you have evidence that all flyovers and tunnels in US, Europe and Middle East can accommodate MBT?
Have a small and light MBT?
Sure. But you're mistaken in thinking that putting a big gun on a light chassis will make it an MBT. You also have to take into consideration the low level of armour protection offered by a small/light chassis. MBT are heavy not because of the main gun, but because of the armour protection.
The IDF operate Centurions without the main gun and it still weighs 50 tons.
If you want small, light and fast with a big gun, there are plenty of wheeled options like the Stryker MGS. -
Someone once mentioned replacing all the SM1 with MBTs. That's not gonna work me thinks. You'll need a combination of armoured vehicles. MBTs, light tanks, IFVs armed with ATGM & perhaps even some wheeled vehicles like the Piranha. Coupled with armoured infantry packing decent ATGM power & of course our Apaches. A team effort basically.
Even having 500 state of the art M1A2 MBTs ain't gonna be of much use if we just operate them & nothing else. -
Sure kana RPGOriginally posted by moca:Do you have evidence that all bridges in US, Europe and Middle East are unbreakable?
Do you have evidence that all roads won't "crack up" in US, Europe and Middle East?
Have a small and light MBT?
Sure. But you're mistaken in thinking that putting a big gun on a light chassis will make it an MBT. You also have to take into consideration the low level of armour protection offered by a small/light chassis. MBT are heavy not because of the main gun, but because of the armour protection.
[/quote]Did i say that?Do you have evidence that all flyovers and tunnels in US, Europe and Middle East can accommodate MBT?
Example only when i say that that if u have too big n heavy a tank u might face these problems.
[quote]If you want small, light and fast with a big gun, there are plenty of wheeled options like the Stryker MGS.
-
What is the ground pressure exerted by each tank? That will settle any discussion.Originally posted by moca:Inevitably, in a discussion about tanks in Singapore, someone would mention that Singapore (and Malaysian) terrain is NOT suitable for MBT.
Some of the reasons cited is mud, jungle, plantations, bridges etc.
The most absurd argument is mud in SG, as the tank WAS INVENTED TO HANDLE MUD. As if our mud is different from their mud.
Personally, I think this is all rubbish as we have had the Centurion MBT for the last 30 years.
But can someone from the armour corps please determine if our terrain is indeed unsuitable for MBT? Did they tell you at armour school that SG is not suitable for MBT?
To give everyone a better idea for discussion here are the specs for both Centurion and AMX-13.
Centurion specs:
Length: 8.29 m
Width: 3.39 m
Height: 2.94 m
Weight: 56,000 kg
AMX-13 specs:
Length: 6.36 m (with gun forwards)
Width: 2.51 m
Height: 2.3 m
Weight: 15,000 kg (combat weight) -
I was not in armor, but my 2 cts is that: NOT the entire SG or Malaysian peninsular is Good for MBTs. But its not as bad as some people make them out to be.
Its not a question of, can MBTs fight here, or can MBTs fight there. Its whether the MBT can get there. Roadways and highways are important, since that is where u can move ANY vehicle at its fastest movement speed. Not to mention fuel economy.
But what if where the MBT is needed is somewhere that u need to go OFF road, into very soft ground when it just rained for the past 2 days? And what if the objective is full of tight terrain and lots of hills or sudden rise and drops? Do u really really need and MBT there?
IMO, its about having the right tool for the right job at the right place. -
M1A2 Abrams,Leopard 2A6,Challenger2,Merkava Mk4. All these r among the best MBTs out there today on the market. But the question is........R THEY FOR US? Do u want to cross that bridge whenever u 1 or do u want to detour n go the long way while your guys waited for your fire support? Or wait for ACE to help u? I mean 69 ton worth of firepower n protection is good to have. But is it suitable for us? If u read GW2 U.S report u find that they found out M1A1 too heavy to cross most of the bridges....N note that not all roads r built for "heavy" traffic of this kind. I'm merely pointing out the facts on the weight issue......
Lighter n "smaller" MBT might be K1A1(120mm main gun)
Length (including main armament):9.67m
Length (hull):7.48m
Width:3.60m
Height:2.25m
Combat weight:54.5 ton
Max:65km/h
Ground pressure:0.87kg/cm²
K1A1 features a primary armament of double the penetration power. The tank's 120mm gun can penetrate up to 600 mm of armour while the old model's 105mm gun could only penetrate up to 300 mm. The effective firing range also has increased to 2 km from the previous 1.2 km. Demonstrated a first round hit probability of greater than 90% when firing on the move at a moving target.
Manoeuvrability of the tank is optimised for varied geographical features which include mountainous terrain, jungle, paddy fields n swamp.
Or Leclerc(120mm main gun)
Length (including main armament):9.9m
Length (hull):6.9 metres
Width:3.7 metres
Height:2.5 metres
Combat weight:56.5 tonnes
Max:70km/h
Ground pressure: 0.9kg/cm²
It's gun fires APFSD n HEAT rounds with a firing rate of 12 rpm. The tank has an auto loading sys which allows cross-country fire-on-the-move against mobile targets.
But we must think if ppl would sell Chobham armour tanks/tech to us or not? If not we might need to make tanks that suits our needs. Or buy. -
why all the discussion on MBTs?
-
Why is fuel economy more important than firepower or survivability?Originally posted by Shotgun:Its not a question of, can MBTs fight here, or can MBTs fight there. Its whether the MBT can get there. Roadways and highways are important, since that is where u can move ANY vehicle at its fastest movement speed. Not to mention fuel economy.
This is irrelevant for if the terrain is as bad as you mentioned, it will be problem for ALL motorised traffic expecially wheeled vehicles. In fact, the MBT will be the one still mobile when the terrain becaomes too soft for all other vehicles. I don't know where you got the idea of MBT being stuck in the mud when other vehicles are unaffected. The opposite of this scenario is true.Originally posted by Shotgun:But what if where the MBT is needed is somewhere that u need to go OFF road, into very soft ground when it just rained for the past 2 days? And what if the objective is full of tight terrain and lots of hills or sudden rise and drops? Do u really really need and MBT there?
IMO, its about having the right tool for the right job at the right place.
MUD. THAT'S WHY TANKS WERE INVENTED. -
This is a hypothetical planning exercise. Should be treated as no more than a strategic computer war game or such.
I think one of the ways to really assess the need for 50+ tanks is to see from the other side's point of view. That is: defending MY. To do that, you need to be pretty familiar with MY terrain, all the way from SG to KL.
(1) Now put yourself as MY. Assumed that your air force is no longer-functional. You have 1-2 battlions (abt 50) of MBT (PT-91). Plus your usual infantry regiment. How are you going to best deploy your forces to defend the 300km land from SG to KL?
(2) After you have considered that scenario, then reverse side and put yourself your SG. What are the tools that you would like to have to neutralise such a defense?
From my view:
For (1), there are 2 types of roads from SG to KL: the northsouth highway and the trunk roads.
I would setup my infantry defenses at built-up areas that overlook the NS to harress/movement down NS. I might put the MBTs in there. They serve no more than pill-boxes. But if I move them out into the open they will be destroyed by enemy air-force.
I need to defend the trunk roads too. So I will also put my infantry in towns along the trunk roads. Plus, I will blow up the bridges that linked the trunk roads across rivers.
Yes, there are plenty of palm oil plantations in between towns. But they serve not much strategic purpose nor are they good places to set up defenses.
For (2), so do you think having MBTs is the best way to assault my defense?
Or are the Air-Force with precision-weapons and Apaches more useful to break these strong points? -
"A main battle tank is designed to be very mobile and able to tackle most types of terrain. Its wide tracks disperse the heavy weight of the vehicle over a large area, resulting in a specific ground pressure that might be lower than that of a man's foot."
http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Tanks -
Here you go.Originally posted by touchstone_2000:What is the ground pressure exerted by each tank? That will settle any discussion.
Singapore
M113 Ultra OWS http://www.mindef.gov.sg/army/armour_equip_ultra.htm
Weight: 21.5 tons
Ground Pressure: 0.54kg/cm2
Singapore
Bionix IFV 25 http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/1999/jul/30jul99_nr/30jul99_fs.html
Weight: 23 tons
Ground Pressure: 0.76kg/cm2
Germany
Leopard2 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/leopard2.htm
Weight: 55 tons
Ground Pressure: 0.83kg/cm2
India
Arjun http://www.drdo.org/products/mbt.htm
Weight: 59 tons
Ground Pressure: 0.84 kg/cm2
Brazil
EE-T1 Osório http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/EE-T1-Osorio.htm
Weight: 43.7 tons
Ground Pressure: 0.85 kg/cm2
Singapore
AMX-13S1 http://www.mindef.gov.sg/army/armour_equip_amx.htm
Weight: 17.2 tons
Ground Pressure: 0.876 kg/cm2
Russia
T-90 http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/MBT/t-90.html
Weight: 50 tons
Ground Pressure: 0.91 kg/cm2
UK
Centurion: http://www.onwar.com/weapons/afv/data/ukmbtcenturionm13.htm
Weight: 52 tons
Ground Pressure: 0.95 kg/cm2 -
As you can see, the AMX-13, at only 17 tons, has nearly the same ground pressure as most MBT around 50 tons. Here's a list from lowest to highest. The M1A1 and Merkava are both around 0.9 something kg/cm2. Because I can't find a site with proper tables I didn't post them.
The surprise is that the 17 tons AMX-13 ground pressure is only 0.074kg less than the 52 ton Centurion. That's a minuscule difference considering the huge weight difference!!!
So terrain that will get the 62 ton Centurion bogged down will also stop the 17 ton AMX-13.
So, please, no more talk about the MBT being stuck in mud and not Light tanks. -
Erm, none of us are in the strategic planning level so we just talk about silly unimportant things like whether our terrain can support MBT or not.Originally posted by goldenretriever:This is a hypothetical planning exercise. Should be treated as no more than a strategic computer war game or such.
I think one of the ways to really assess the need for 50+ tanks is to see from the other side's point of view. That is: defending MY. To do that, you need to be pretty familiar with MY terrain, all the way from SG to KL.
(1) Now put yourself as MY. Assumed that your air force is no longer-functional. You have 1-2 battlions (abt 50) of MBT (PT-91). Plus your usual infantry regiment. How are you going to best deploy your forces to defend the 300km land from SG to KL?
(2) After you have considered that scenario, then reverse side and put yourself your SG. What are the tools that you would like to have to neutralise such a defense?
From my view:
For (1), there are 2 types of roads from SG to KL: the northsouth highway and the trunk roads.
I would setup my infantry defenses at built-up areas that overlook the NS to harress/movement down NS. I might put the MBTs in there. They serve no more than pill-boxes. But if I move them out into the open they will be destroyed by enemy air-force.
I need to defend the trunk roads too. So I will also put my infantry in towns along the trunk roads. Plus, I will blow up the bridges that linked the trunk roads across rivers.
Yes, there are plenty of palm oil plantations in between towns. But they serve not much strategic purpose nor are they good places to set up defenses.
For (2), so do you think having MBTs is the best way to assault my defense?
Or are the Air-Force with precision-weapons and Apaches more useful to break these strong points?
I would really like to get into a scenario discussion with you but this would detract from the very simple topic of MBT vs Singapore terrain.
To say the least, it seems you have little idea of the different kinds of airborne, land or seaborne assets a modern armed force - like SAF - have at our disposal.
We would be "costal hooking" their flanks and "airborne dropping" on their rear.
And let's not forget that they, too, may have that ability.
Just attacking up the N/S highway sounds very medieval.
Sorry...