SG terrain suitable for MBT?
-
Could it be that LT are more cheap to maintain and to train a NSF based crew? Perhaps LT are generally more nimble due to their small size so they can hide, manovuer well in our terrain?
Or could it be perhaps this "MBT not suitable for SEA nations........" was merely a smoke screen taught to our tankees to mask our interest or inventory of MBT from the northern chaps? -
Fuel Economy: Because Tanks run on fuels. Fuel Economy means you can cover greater distances without refueling as much. (Ref to Movement only, not combat) Everybody floors the pedal in combat. =DOriginally posted by moca: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.
MUD. THAT'S WHY TANKS WERE INVENTED.
I do not disagree with u that MBTs would be affected by terrain as well as other vehicles. But there are some factors to be considered as well. For example, and MBT going through a palm plantation would probably be crushing trees all the way. Its long barrel unable to traverse fully sometimes cos of trees. On the other hand, the BX or M113 are able to fit in between the trees (BX was designed to) , and their barrels able to turn and face without banging them into a trunk. There are some places where the MBT is less effective. -
A large MBT do have difficulties in travelling in our terrain, reason #1 is size, those narrow jungle paths, the narrow width between rubber trees and palm trees as these trees are planted as narrow as possible to fully utilise the land.
Next is road bridges, standard road bridges weight class in Europe is around 40 tons for civilian car, those small bridges in rurul area in our region should be even lower than that of 40 tons.
Remember that SAF did specified 30 tons and below as a standard, they should have make a pretty good survey abt it to make it as standard.
Lastly, we certainly will not rely on limited trunk roads and NS highway for our initial movement becos it will be full of ambushes, mines, IED etc etc.
Therefore with LT plus IFV , we will not be restricted by using trunk roads and NS highway but thru all kind of dirt roads, plantations etc.
Tactical mobility is impt for an armoured force, w/o that, it will not be effective!!! -
Fuel economy? Why don't we all just walk there? Why don't we just mothball our F-16 and fly bi-planes? Fuel economy, right? And while we're at it let's just give everyone one magazine as everybody anyhow shoot during combat.Originally posted by Shotgun:Fuel Economy: Because Tanks run on fuels. Fuel Economy means you can cover greater distances without refueling as much. (Ref to Movement only, not combat) Everybody floors the pedal in combat. =D
Sorry, I think this point is quite irrelevant.
Besides, we are not talking about the M1A1 gas turbine - that's extreme. Most MBT have diesel engines that are quite fuel economy. And all modern mobile armies must have a long logistical support tail, no choice.Originally posted by gary1910:A large MBT do have difficulties in travelling in our terrain, reason #1 is size, those narrow jungle paths, the narrow width between rubber trees and palm trees as these trees are planted as narrow as possible to fully utilise the land.
Have you measured a palm plantation or a rubber plantation? I'm curious if there is a standard width for plantations? Do you know the width between trees?Originally posted by Shotgun:I do not disagree with u that MBTs would be affected by terrain as well as other vehicles. But there are some factors to be considered as well. For example, and MBT going through a palm plantation would probably be crushing trees all the way. Its long barrel unable to traverse fully sometimes cos of trees. On the other hand, the BX or M113 are able to fit in between the trees (BX was designed to) , and their barrels able to turn and face without banging them into a trunk. There are some places where the MBT is less effective.
But what you just said made it sound like there is a HUGE difference in the width between a MBT and a BX or M113 (or AMX13-SM1).
AMX 13-sm1
Length with gun forward: 7.4m
Length of hull: 4.88m
Width: 2.62m
Bionix IFV 25
Length with gun forward: NA
Length of hull: 5.9m
Width: 2.7m
M113 Ultra 40/50
Length with gun forward: NA
Length of hull: 5.32m
Width: 2.8m
Centurion MBT
Length with gun forward: 9.8m
Length of hull: 7.8m
Width: 3.39m
The width difference between:
• Centurion vs AMX13-sm1 = 77cm
• Centurion vs Bionix = 69cm
• Centurion vs M113 = 59cm
All of them less than 1 metre difference.
Is this such a big difference in width? I don't think so.
I won't argue that the Centurion will be like a "bull in a china shop" once INSIDE the plantation. But to say that a Bionix or M113 can travel through a plantation that's too narrow for a Centurion is pure speculation. 60cm is gonna make that big a difference in a rubber plantation? C'mon.
Based upon the numbers, I must say width-wise, where the AMX-13-SM1, M113, Bionix etc can go, so, too, can the Centurion. -
If you're saying that I am purely speculating about the plantation thing, you're mistaken. This was something that I learnt to my surprised whilst interacting with some of my friends in Armor units. Perhaps a centurion would fit OKAY with a little distance for clearance, but would that small clearance make it easy to manuever?
Stop picking on fussy details and making impractical comparisons like, "Why don't we fly Biplanes instead of F-16s." Tanks run on fuel, and if we are gonna run down every damn tree we see, its probably gonna limit the length of time we can operate. War fighting is not just about taking land and shooting big guns. There is a cost to war, and that cost will affect the sustainability of the campaign.
I'm not saying that cos of "Fuel Economy" we'll trade in MBTs for Land Rovers. I'm saying is that, why have a tank rev- its engines like mad to thru difficult terrain, when you don't really absolutely have to?
I didn't even comment about the "tanks were made for MUD." Most of the evolution of MBT took place in Europe, in the 2nd WW and in anticipation of the Cold War. They did not have terrain and the kinda red-softee-landslide-mud we have in Peninsula Malaysia, nor the kinda average rain fall we recieve annually. Nor did they have virtually impassable jungles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de8vL1QMQLg
Given such situations, where tanks have to travel down muddy jungle tracks with this kinda huge MBT sucking potholes in column formations, don't you think the tank could be used somewhere else with greater effect?
Again and again I say, the right tool, at the right place at the right time. We don't charge every mud hill with an MBT cos "THEY ARE MADE FOR MUD." -
Moca or TVDog,
We have been talking abt the same issue just awhile back and you seem unable to be accept the concept of that many of these are actually conducted studies by professional military orgn like SAF and Brits army etc.
For example in WW2, the Brits army thought that armour was not effective in terrain in Malayan , and they believe that that Japs armour would have to travel down via truck roads system, therefore they setup fortification along those roads.
But the Jap used LT and light vehicles travelled thru rurul area and plantations and surprised the Brits.
After WW2, the Briits started R&D for the Scorpion AFV family and since they are still fighting CT in Malayan, one of the requirement is that width must be small enough to manuerve effectively in rubber tree plantation!!!
If rubber tree plantation is not restrictive, then why bother setting up such requirement???
Lastly , SAF has width limitation of 3m , why???
Do you know if SAF dun bother abt that width limitation, then Primus would not have developed, becos we could get our hand on cheaper 2nd hand M109 which width is only 3.12m, just 12cm and yet SAF willing to pay more for newly developed Primus!!!
If you argument is based on LT vs MBT, then why is practically all countries with tropical rainforest still uses LT and not all MBT???
Especially countires like Thailand , Brazil, Argentina etc have both LT and MBT, why not all MBT, why not operate 100% MBT???
They have operate both type of vehicle in their own terrain , so they should be expert abt their own backyard!!!
Especially Thailand who has plenty of cheap 2nd hand MBT from US yet still buys brand new and expensive LT, why????
In fact, there is mkt of new LT for example Stingray, Ascord, CV90105, M8 etc, if there is no need for LT, then why so many new LT in the mkt???
Are you saying that all these countries armies and LT manufacturers are all wrong abt the usefulness of LT ???
Either you are wrong or all the above experts are wrong!!! -
hmm... note that the pressure exerted is "kg/cm2"... that means centurion and the T90 will exert much more pressure compared to the AMX13 cos it has a much larger area.Originally posted by moca:Here you go.
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 -
Light tanks r not useless simple see FAC vs destroyers as example n u will c why their demand is increasing
-
Length: 5.58m or 7.77m (with main gun)
Width: 2.5m
Height: 2.5m
Ground pressure: 0.68kg/cm²
RATE OF FIRE: 12rpm
MAX ROAD SPEED: 68 km/h
So this LT still quite a good choice lah?
Quite small size...good Ground pressure.....Bigger gun(105mm): Penetration : APFSDS shell: 500-550mm tank steel with impact angle of 90 degrees,Tandem shaped-charge shell:1000mm tank steel.
When used in a palm plantation or a rubber plantation should be easier to maneuver than this....Oh n narrow jungle paths(maybe just nice)
Length: 9.53m(with main gun)
Width: 3.59 m
Height Overall: 2.19m
At least LT easier to swing main gun around
Ground pressure: 0.9kg/cm²
RATE OF FIRE: 8rpm
MAX ROAD SPEED: 60 km/h
ARMOUR
Hull/Turret front part: 500 mm(W/O ERA)
Hull sides: 80 mm(W/O ERA)
Turret roof: 80 mm (W/O ERA)
Est. ERA increase protection against HEAT X 2,KE attack X 1.6
So if LT gunner marksman,double tap with APFSDS shell or Tandem shaped-charge shell,it should bag a kill. Unless it kana shot 1st. Maybe aim at tracks,at sides bottom,at back(engine block) or look at the driver in pic, between turret n chassis at driver's block area. Stop its movement n kill it at our own time or blind it...... -
So i think a mix of MBTs n LTs better.....One type for differ tac situ.....Replace Centurion for newer MBTs design like
Combat weight between Centurion n K1A1/Leclerc max differ 4.5 ton but better performance n lower ground pressure n dimension smaller too. -
We develop Primus cos of 12cm width difference with the M109?Originally posted by gary1910:Do you know if SAF dun bother abt that width limitation, then Primus would not have developed, becos we could get our hand on cheaper 2nd hand M109 which width is only 3.12m, just 12cm and yet SAF willing to pay more for newly developed Primus!!!
That's a new one.
You are the one who's wrong cos we are not debating the usefulness (or not) of light tanks.Originally posted by gary1910:If you argument is based on LT vs MBT, then why is practically all countries with tropical rainforest still uses LT and not all MBT???
blah blahblah...
Either you are wrong or all the above experts are wrong!!!
I start this thread to discuss the notion that MBT are not suitable for Singapore.
So far, you haven't said anything to support or counter this notion.
If SAF has a 3m limitation for AFV do you know the real reasons behind it or are you just blindly assuming it has to do with the Singapore terrain?
I would venture a wild guess to say that the 3m width limitation is for fitting into C-130, not rubber plantation as you suggest.
-
Dude, unlike you, I do a bit of research before making sweeping statements.Originally posted by Shotgun:Stop picking on fussy details
You go on and on as it there is a HUGE difference in width between the AMX13 and Centurion. I just gently point out that this is not so by letting the facts speak for themselves.
And this makes you unhappy.
Why hold on to false notions?
-
Chill Folks...
-
Sure.Originally posted by ^Delta^:Chill Folks...
My apologies to all if I made things sound personal. It is not. -
A very interesting vehicle development to read about is that of the little-known Brazilian private venture MBT EE-T1 Osório.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/EE-T1-Osorio.htm
This is however, a cancelled project and its development even bankrupted the company that developed it called Engesa. Am not recommending this tank, just that its development and eventual failure is a rather sad and sobering story.
"The development of this MBT also reflects the inherent difficulties facing a company based in the developing world in moving up the high-technology ladder to the production of more advanced weapon systems."
This could be the reason why STK never even bother to try and develop and sell MBT, as this category is simply too competitve and the best and most suitable product does not always win. As in all business, you need the right connections.
Like SG & MY, Brazil is a tropical country. Of course, their Amazonian jungles are impassable to ANY types of vehicles and they have to keep to tracks or roads.
They are also a country with a poor rural area like MY ie bad roads and bridges etc.
Consequently, the Brazilian Army has rather stringent specs for a MBT.
As a result, the Osorio is one of the more compact MBT with a smoothbore 120mm gun.
It WON THE MBT EVALUATION TRIALS in Saudi Arabia and they annouced the plan to buy over 300 vehicles.
But Desert Storm 1991 broke out and as a debt to USA, Saudi dropped the Osorio for the M1A1. Even though it was already assessed that the M1A1 is too big and too heavy for even Saudi Arabia - a desert country.
The company filed for bankruptcy, laid off over 3,000 workers, end of story. -
Sorry, never said light tanks are useless.Originally posted by spartan6:Light tanks r not useless simple see FAC vs destroyers as example n u will c why their demand is increasing
This thread is meant to discuss if MBT can or cannot be operated in SG & MY with regards to the terrain.
The comparisons made between the AMX13 LT and the Centurion MBT is to illustrate the small diffference of the width and ground pressure between the 2 vehicles. -
Well, they did say what is available in the mkt does not suit them especially the need to have width below 3m and weight of less than 30tons.( That is stated by Mindef if you dunno abt it)Originally posted by moca:We develop Primus cos of 12cm width difference with the M109?
That's a new one.
M109 is one of the closer to the requirement stated ( width 3.15m and weight 25 tons) but instead of getting M109, we asked the same coy to design and produce the Primus chassis (UCVP) for Primus, so why bother, must as well get the M109 chassis from them or even the entire M109 SPH???
You can ask anyone from armour and they will tell you same thing, even in MY, there are ppl who question the wisdom of getting PT-91 becos of plenty of rubber plantations etc in their country.Originally posted by moca:You are the one who's wrong cos we are not debating the usefulness (or not) of light tanks.
I start this thread to discuss the notion that MBT are not suitable for Singapore.
So far, you haven't said anything to support or counter this notion.
If SAF has a 3m limitation for AFV do you know the real reasons behind it or are you just blindly assuming it has to do with the Singapore terrain?
I would venture a wild guess to say that the 3m width limitation is for fitting into C-130, not rubber plantation as you suggest.
As for C-130 capable, perhaps but not the weight class, Primus of weight 28.3 tons is certainly cannot be handled by a C-130,we need A400M for such weight class, so you assumption does not hold water.
Even our own BX IFV is consider to heavy for C-130, btw do you know that we developed a special lighter BX ICV which was to compete in US IBGT competition that must be C-130 deployable.
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/supplement/lav/lav_bionix.shtml -
Mobility Kill For M1A1 Iraq
Well protected MBTs can be stopped through Mobility Kill -
The burning question in my mind is:
Did we ever had Centurions on Singapore island?
Are we still operating these Centurions? Or are they disbanded and mothballed?
If we never had the Centurions, or at least they were never based here in Singapore, then can debate.
If we do have them here physically, then it would be conclusive that the terrain is ascertained by SAF to be suitable for MBT.
End of discussion, right or not? -
A uncle of mine told me he served as a Centurion MBT driver in the 70's and was sent to Israel for training.
Perhaps he was telling me (a kid then) a very big lie...
And this is published in every Janes' article and book about the Centurion tank.
So it this is all true, then, yes, we do have MBTs already, and the discussion is redundant. -
If i'm not wrong max cargo load for C-130 is 21690kg.....Max cargo hold height: 2.74 m,Max cargo hold width : 3.12 m,Max cargo hold length (excluding ramp):12.19m....Even if can fit.............Can it fly?????quote:
Originally posted by moca:
You are the one who's wrong cos we are not debating the usefulness (or not) of light tanks.
I start this thread to discuss the notion that MBT are not suitable for Singapore.
So far, you haven't said anything to support or counter this notion.
If SAF has a 3m limitation for AFV do you know the real reasons behind it or are you just blindly assuming it has to do with the Singapore terrain?
I would venture a wild guess to say that the 3m width limitation is for fitting into C-130, not rubber plantation as you suggest. [/quote][quote]Originally posted by gary1910:You can ask anyone from armour and they will tell you same thing, even in MY, there are ppl who question the wisdom of getting PT-91 becos of plenty of rubber plantations etc in their country.
As for C-130 capable, perhaps but not the weight class, Primus of weight 28.3 tons is certainly cannot be handled by a C-130,we need A400M for such weight class, so you assumption does not hold water.
Even our own BX IFV is consider to heavy for C-130, btw do you know that we developed a special lighter BX ICV which was to compete in US IBGT competition that must be C-130 deployable.
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/supplement/lav/lav_bionix.shtml Overloaded -
Maybe change to " Suitable New MBTs for SAF"Originally posted by moca:A uncle of mine told me he served as a Centurion MBT driver in the 70's and was sent to Israel for training.
Perhaps he was telling me (a kid then) a very big lie...
And this is published in every Janes' article and book about the Centurion tank.
So it this is all true, then, yes, we do have MBTs already, and the discussion is redundant. -
I know but but there r some tat feel LT r useless , just trying 2 do LT some justice.
Anyway i agree tat e width of 3m is 2 fit in2 a C-130 not becos of MY plantation, a MBT tat cant knock down a plam tree shouldnt be called MBT.
But apart from C-130 there r ALT like using watercraft lanuch from LST tat capable of ferrying MBT 2 shore , maybe hovercraft etc
then e width limit can be overcome liao -
Errr.....We flying LT in C-130 to where? SAF doing airborne armour op behind the lines mehOriginally posted by spartan6:I know but but there r some tat feel LT r useless , just trying 2 do LT some justice.
Anyway i agree tat e width of 3m is 2 fit in2 a C-130 not becos of MY plantation, a MBT tat cant knock down a plam tree shouldnt be called MBT.
But apart from C-130 there r ALT like using watercraft lanuch from LST tat capable of ferrying MBT 2 shore , maybe hovercraft etc then e width limit can be overcome liao
-
EE-T1 Osório
EE-T2 Osório