SG terrain suitable for MBT?
-
Hmm, possible. I didn't get a chance to actually measure the track width of the new Bx AVLBs, but they seemed rather similar to the usual BX width. Still, it makes sense that the vehicles would be under a particular width. However, this is not the case for the water-bridging assets which i was referring to. =DOriginally posted by gary1910:Those which directly supporting armoured column is the armoured engineer and under them for bridging are M60AVLB which is class 60, the newer stuff AMX-13SM1 class 30 AVLB and Bionix class 30 AVLB.
AMX-13SM1 class 30 AVLB and Bionix class 30 AVLB are of locally modified or produced, these bridge have limited width , just slightly wider than the track width of the vehicles that carry it, which is 3.2m
Please refer to these pix:
http://www.one35th.com/bionix/avlb_gallery.htm
and spec:
http://www.one35th.com/bionix/avlb_spec.htm
I dun have the spec of the bridge of AMX-13SM1 , but you could see from the pix below , it is slghtly wider than the track width of SM1.
So, that is why I said the width 3m and weight of 30 tons standard could be the be due to bridging equipment, and yes we do have larger AVLB but we only have 12 and now they are now supplemented by these smaller local modified and produced AVLBs.
Eventhough these AVLBs are b4 my time, therefore I cannot be sure, but I will bet they are the reasons for that standard.
Before I left the army, i heard rumors of new bridging equipment coming in. No doubt newer european systems that is capable of supporting MBT class. -
The bridging equipment you refer to are all purpose bridging equipment , AVLB are design to directly support ABGs.Originally posted by Shotgun:Hmm, possible. I didn't get a chance to actually measure the track width of the new Bx AVLBs, but they seemed rather similar to the usual BX width. Still, it makes sense that the vehicles would be under a particular width. However, this is not the case for the water-bridging assets which i was referring to. =D
Before I left the army, i heard rumors of new bridging equipment coming in. No doubt newer european systems that is capable of supporting MBT class.
Currently, Bionix AVLB are brand new, SM1 AVLB are perhaps only just been modified perhaps slightly more than 10 years, the oldest is of course the M60 AVLB which some are more than 3 decades but the only one that could support MBTs.
European system huh???
Heard abt German sliding bridge since the 80s, perhaps to replace the M60AVLB. Perhaps just interested. or just plain rumours, 4 type of AVLBs, what a rojak!!!! -
i believe the sliding bridge system shotgun refer to is either the leguan or the FLB, this is the only 2 sliding bridge that i can think of now.. if you keep track of the mobile bridging equipment available worldwide, u'll realised that there's not many available. the other 2 sliding bridge is from sweden and UK.
the bionix based bridge is actually not the old AVLB design but a leguan based system. US have a similar system called as M8 M1A1/A2 based 'Wolverine' Heavy Assault Bridge.
The bionix launched bridge make use of a telescopic launching grider to make up for the light weight of the vehicle. i just found out even though the bridge is only class 30 rated, the supplier actually added that it can be "upgraded" to class 60 by using 2 bridge.. i.e. 1 track on each bridge. those who have made crossing on the leguan will realised that it will be not much of a difference from crossing a single leguan bridge. http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/engineering/man/
i just took another look at the website again and realised that Malaysia has a number of leguan bridge based on their PT-91. i wonder if this counts towards their total number of PT-91? or an addition on top of what they now have.
btw, shotgun, when did you ORD? this will give us a good time frame on the bridge that you may have heard about -
thats correct. the soil conditions of the region is probably well documented with up to date satellite photos. recce units like scouts and LRRP will prob in indian country ahead of the main force to confirm the ground conditions and identify defences in the AO.Originally posted by Shotgun:I believe that most people are aware that its not impossible to operate MBTs in SG or MY. As I've mentioned earlier, its a matter of using the right tool at the right place. That is why I believe there has been extensive survey done to find out what kinda soil, terrain features are prevalent in whichever part of operations area.
With proper OPs, and defence lay out, the MBT can form a defensive strong point in any urban area. The MBT's main gun, is also capable of engaging fortifications, bunkers and "garrisonned" buildings in urban warfare.
Then again, I'm not expert in employing MBTs. I just know that it can be done, in the right places.
the use of MBT, in the right way, will probably shorten the fight. one possible scenario will be for the light tanks and infantry to hold the front while the MBTs, with support from heliborne forces, spear thru the defences and seize keep MSR and supply route. with the MBT in place to hold them, this will allow the force to hold the ground while enemy forces runs out of supply. -
We are all agreed on this, so if you are the commander don't send your MBT into the rubber plantation.Originally posted by gary1910:
Look at the "width" if the gun turret traverse to the side,, that will be problem if you have MBT with a large caibre gun in a rubber plantation.
-
Large calibre gun nowadays just get longer n longer.....N not bigger.....But some r Xperimenting with 140mm or 150mm gunOriginally posted by gary1910:
Look at the "width" if the gun turret traverse to the side,, that will be problem if you have MBT with a large caibre gun in a rubber plantation. -
MY ordered 62 PT-91 variant which are 48 PT91M MBT, 6 WTZ4 ARVs, 5 PMC90 bridgelayers and 3 MID Armoured Engr Vehicles.Originally posted by khaiseng:i just took another look at the website again and realised that Malaysia has a number of leguan bridge based on their PT-91. i wonder if this counts towards their total number of PT-91? or an addition on top of what they now have. -
Early 2005. The european system i heard about was for amphibious bridging. (Pontoons etc) I suspect the system is probably of german origins. After I Orded, never really bothered about it. Heh.Originally posted by khaiseng:i believe the sliding bridge system shotgun refer to is either the leguan or the FLB, this is the only 2 sliding bridge that i can think of now.. if you keep track of the mobile bridging equipment available worldwide, u'll realised that there's not many available. the other 2 sliding bridge is from sweden and UK.
the bionix based bridge is actually not the old AVLB design but a leguan based system. US have a similar system called as M8 M1A1/A2 based 'Wolverine' Heavy Assault Bridge.
The bionix launched bridge make use of a telescopic launching grider to make up for the light weight of the vehicle. i just found out even though the bridge is only class 30 rated, the supplier actually added that it can be "upgraded" to class 60 by using 2 bridge.. i.e. 1 track on each bridge. those who have made crossing on the leguan will realised that it will be not much of a difference from crossing a single leguan bridge. http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/engineering/man/
i just took another look at the website again and realised that Malaysia has a number of leguan bridge based on their PT-91. i wonder if this counts towards their total number of PT-91? or an addition on top of what they now have.
btw, shotgun, when did you ORD? this will give us a good time frame on the bridge that you may have heard about -
i think i heard about that new system during my last ICT... maybe they upgrading from M2 comet to M3?
-
Now its M3G liao. Saw a couple of those lined up in the hanger. Looks impressive. Larger than the existing M3 & painted black.Originally posted by khaiseng:i think i heard about that new system during my last ICT... maybe they upgrading from M2 comet to M3? -
After all the disc about width n weight limit,does it mean that even if we r going to have new MBT,it will not be over 3m width n 30ton combat weight? Cos on the market all r over those limits,if u don't include those not for sale,that will mean we r making our own MBTs. R we? N if we r,as it's so light do we have the right armour to protect it from even other MBT main gun shot?
-
Originally posted by papabear20046:
No, SAF operate both LT and MBT.
[b]After all the disc about width n weight limit,does it mean that even if we r going to have new MBT,it will not be over 3m width n 30ton combat weight? Cos on the market all r over those limits,if u don't include those not for sale,that will mean we r making our own MBTs. R we? N if we r,as it's so light do we have the right armour to protect it from even other MBT main gun shot? [/b]
Width and weight limits are for LT.
And LT are in our mechanised force, eventhough we called them "armour".
As for MBT , the rumoured true blue armoured force?!?
-
Originally posted by papabear20046:
Apparently, anything under 50 tons is not considered an MBT.
[b]After all the disc about width n weight limit,does it mean that even if we r going to have new MBT,it will not be over 3m width n 30ton combat weight? Cos on the market all r over those limits,if u don't include those not for sale,that will mean we r making our own MBTs. R we? N if we r,as it's so light do we have the right armour to protect it from even other MBT main gun shot? [/b]
I think the term MBT doesn't just refer to the size of the gun, but the whole package including the size, the armour capability (which directly affects the weight) as well as the gun.
Why size as well being consideration?
A small tank like the CV 90120 has a huge 120mm gun, but can carry maybe 30 rounds of ammo.
(As a rough comparison, the AMX-13 has a total capacity of 35 rounds of 75mm ammo.)
On the other hand, a MBT can carry more than 50 rounds.
An idea of ammo expenditure during war:
During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, IDF MBTs often fought till they ran out of ammo, within one or two days of combat and have to go back to the rear to reload. This is in spite of the fact that the smaller 105mm guns of that period meant that each MBT can carry an average of 60 rounds!
So the small ammo capacity and thin armour of a Light Tank would mean that it will not last very long in a full on fight before running out of ammo or being knocked out.
So that's why something like the CV 90120 is still be called a Light Tank and not a Main Battle Tank. -
Wrong, actually it is suppose to classified under weight.Originally posted by moca:Apparently, anything under 50 tons is not considered an MBT.
I think the term MBT doesn't just refer to the size of the gun, but the whole package including the size, the armour capability (which directly affects the weight) as well as the gun.
Why size as well being consideration?
A small tank like the CV 90120 has a huge 120mm gun, but can carry maybe 30 rounds of ammo.
(As a rough comparison, the AMX-13 has a total capacity of 35 rounds of 75mm ammo.)
On the other hand, a MBT can carry more than 50 rounds.
An idea of ammo expenditure during war:
During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, IDF MBTs often fought till they ran out of ammo, within one or two days of combat and have to go back to the rear to reload. This is in spite of the fact that the smaller 105mm guns of that period meant that each MBT can carry an average of 60 rounds!
So the small ammo capacity and thin armour of a Light Tank would mean that it will not last very long in a full on fight before running out of ammo or being knocked out.
So that's why something like the CV 90120 is still be called a Light Tank and not a Main Battle Tank.
MBT was used to be medium weight tank, Janes classification in anything under 25 tons as Light tank.
and there were 3 generally accepted classification:
1) Light tank below 25tons
2) Medium tank or MBT are 25~60tons?
3) Heavy tank above 60tons??
But nowadays modern MBT are already above 60tons, so no one classofoed any tank as Heavy tank anymore except those old WW2 heavy tank.
And now ppl are classified anything around 30 tons as light tank, so there is lot of confusion, for example Argentina TAM 30tons tank used to be classified as MBT , but now is it considered as LT?? -
In modern days, the definition of tanks have been streamlined down 2 to categories. Light tanks and Main Battle Tanks.Originally posted by gary1910:Wrong, actually it is suppose to classified under weight.
MBT was used to be medium weight tank, Janes classification in anything under 25 tons as Light tank.
and there were 3 generally accepted classification:
1) Light tank below 25tons
2) Medium tank or MBT are 25~60tons?
3) Heavy tank above 60tons??
But nowadays modern MBT are already above 60tons, so no one classofoed any tank as Heavy tank anymore except those old WW2 heavy tank.
And now ppl are classified anything around 30 tons as light tank, so there is lot of confusion, for example Argentina TAM 30tons tank used to be classified as MBT , but now is it considered as LT??
What comes into mind with the term "Heavy Tank" would be eg. KonigsTiger (King Tiger) or the Josef Stalin 3 tanks. Heavy armored, heavy gunned monsters that were underpowered.
In a sense, I think nowadays there is no "categorisation" to classify a vehicle as MBT, just guidelines. So the rules are no hard and fast.
One of the definitions found of the net
"A modern main battle tank (MBT), designed predominantly for combat, is the most powerful direct-fire land-based weapon. It is distinguished from other armoured fighting vehicles primarily by its heavy armour and armament. It can cross rough terrain and move relatively quickly in short bursts, but is power-, maintenance-, and ammunition-hungry and is not designed for sustained operations." -
quote:
Originally posted by papabear20046:
After all the disc about width n weight limit,does it mean that even if we r going to have new MBT,it will not be over 3m width n 30ton combat weight? Cos on the market all r over those limits,if u don't include those not for sale,that will mean we r making our own MBTs. R we? N if we r,as it's so light do we have the right armour to protect it from even other MBT main gun shot?
I know MBTs n LTs r classified by weight....Wat i meant was,our "MBT" will be in 30ton limit,while SM1 is still our LTOriginally posted by moca:Apparently, anything under 50 tons is not considered an MBT.
I think the term MBT doesn't just refer to the size of the gun, but the whole package including the size, the armour capability (which directly affects the weight) as well as the gun.
Why size as well being consideration?
A small tank like the CV 90120 has a huge 120mm gun, but can carry maybe 30 rounds of ammo.
(As a rough comparison, the AMX-13 has a total capacity of 35 rounds of 75mm ammo.)
On the other hand, a MBT can carry more than 50 rounds.
An idea of ammo expenditure during war:
During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, IDF MBTs often fought till they ran out of ammo, within one or two days of combat and have to go back to the rear to reload. This is in spite of the fact that the smaller 105mm guns of that period meant that each MBT can carry an average of 60 rounds!
So the small ammo capacity and thin armour of a Light Tank would mean that it will not last very long in a full on fight before running out of ammo or being knocked out.
So that's why something like the CV 90120 is still be called a Light Tank and not a Main Battle Tank. -
Originally posted by papabear20046:After all the disc about width n weight limit,does it mean that even if we r going to have new MBT,it will not be over 3m width n 30ton combat weight? Cos on the market all r over those limits,if u don't include those not for sale,that will mean we r making our own MBTs. R we? N if we r,as it's so light do we have the right armour to protect it from even other MBT main gun shot?
I know we already have MBTs n LTs.......So wat u mean? LT good for us or not? Cos u say eventhough we called them "armour"Originally posted by gary1910:No, SAF operate both LT and MBT.
Width and weight limits are for LT.
And LT are in our mechanised force, eventhough we called them "armour".
As for MBT , the rumoured true blue armoured force?!? -
Same timeframe as me.Originally posted by Shotgun:Early 2005. The european system i heard about was for amphibious bridging. (Pontoons etc) I suspect the system is probably of german origins. After I Orded, never really bothered about it. Heh.
There was some chatter about the bridging systems then.
What you see as the Bionix-based bridging vehicles and the Leguan, should not be all. -
Originally posted by papabear20046:
That is another classification, in some standard, our ABG which consist of abt 1/3 LT and 2/3 APC/IFV should be considered as mechanised force.
I know we already have MBTs n LTs.......So wat u mean? LT good for us or not? Cos u say [b]eventhough we called them "armour"
[/b]
Whereas an armoured force for some should have 1/2 tank and 1/2 APC/IFVs, some even 2/3 tanks and 1/3 APC/IFVs.
One thing it is not standard and every nation have their orbat structure, our ABG in some country considered as light mechanised force. -
Well you see, given the local terrain over possible advance routes, it makes more sense to have more APC/IFVs with their infantry than light tanks. Though tanks are supposed to be able to clear difficult terrain more effectively than wheeled vehicles, they are also more vulnerable and less effective. Narrow fronts, and insufficient width to form a line would reduce their ability to project firepower forward.
Infantry however, maybe a bit slower, but is able to make better use of available cover of the terrain, fan out and project their firepower across the front. And of course, it goes without saying, that the AI is also able to dig in more effective than armor, freeing up their LTs and IFVs to lead local counter attacks or flank. -
Originally posted by papabear20046:
I know we already have MBTs n LTs.......So wat u mean? LT good for us or not? Cos u say eventhough we called them "armour"Originally posted by gary1910:
True....In others orbat(bigger countries),more MBTs n less AIs,more AIs n less MBTs,known as heavy div n "light" div cos includes artillery n air asst n etc.............
That is another classification, in some standard, our ABG which consist of abt 1/3 LT and 2/3 APC/IFV should be considered as mechanised force.
Whereas an armoured force for some should have 1/2 tank and 1/2 APC/IFVs, some even 2/3 tanks and 1/3 APC/IFVs.
One thing it is not standard and every nation have their orbat structure, our ABG in some country considered as light mechanised force. -
Agree that different country have different breakdown.. they tailor to the role...
if i am not wrong, a ACR have about 1 : 1 in terms of M1 vs M2/M3.... and that is considered "heavy".
I think typical "armoured" divisions should have around 1:1.5 MBT/IFV breakdwon.... esp if they are operating in a open area like the arabian desert.
in SEA where terrain is more enclosed, i see a greater need for infantry...
our future "Armoured" division will proabbly still ahve a high APC/IFV structure...
at most a 1:1:3 with a MBT/Light tank/IFV structure....
our current "Amoured brigade" is basically mechanized infantry. -
I doubt so, becos I believe we have two type of armoured forces, mechanised and armoured.Originally posted by papabear20046:quote:
I know MBTs n LTs r classified by weight....Wat i meant was,our "MBT" will be in 30ton limit,while SM1 is still our LT
As I said our ABGs are light mechanised force which consist of LTs and IFVs, this forces has this limitation(becos of the class 30 AVLBs).
Our MBTs will likely be in a "pure" armoured force that will not have such limitation, based on rumoured MBT( Tempest and new MBT??) that we have and we do have class 60 AVLBs to support such force. -
Very good discussion on LTs and MBTs.
Read somewhere that the hydropneumatic suspension in Bionix is showing some wear and tear already. Seems torque suspension is more reliable. Any comments?
What new technologies will we see in the new LT that will come in 5-6 years time according to rumors? Any new input?
How do they compare with those in the M8 Thunderbolt - hybrid electric drive?
What about the armour? Aluminium chassis or steel? -
from wiki,Originally posted by spencer99:Agree that different country have different breakdown.. they tailor to the role...
if i am not wrong, a ACR have about 1 : 1 in terms of M1 vs M2/M3.... and that is considered "heavy".
I think typical "armoured" divisions should have around 1:1.5 MBT/IFV breakdwon.... esp if they are operating in a open area like the arabian desert.
in SEA where terrain is more enclosed, i see a greater need for infantry...
our future "Armoured" division will proabbly still ahve a high APC/IFV structure...
at most a 1:1:3 with a MBT/Light tank/IFV structure....
our current "Amoured brigade" is basically mechanized infantry.
"In the British Army, "heavy" units equipped with the tracked Warrior IFV are described as "Armoured Infantry", and units with the wheeled Saxon APC as "Mechanised Infantry". This convention is becoming widespread; for example the French Army has "Motorisées" units equipped with the wheeled VAB and "Mécanisées" (armoured) units with the tracked AMX-10P."
so ours can be considered as armoured infantry la.