SG terrain suitable for MBT?
-
I might be completely side-tracking....
But any idea if the Terrex is being evaluated/adopted by SAF?
Cos that would be completely new direction (after reducing our V-200 to lesser roles). -
Ya ours are considered as armour infantry..The difference btw Mechanised Infantry and armour infantry is that...
Mechanised Infantry does not fight with their veh, their veh main role is to transport them near to the fire fight and they will contiune process to the objective on foot......thats why this mechanised infantry veh does not have thick armour protection and heavy fier power...
Armour infantry is that the infantry fight together with the aid of their veh...fight side by side......the will drive all the way into the objective and fight together hence more fire power and better mobility......
thats the diff.............
but i strong agree that south east area terrain not suitable for MBt........... -
There is a role in SEA for each - MBT and Light Tanks. My opinion is that S'pore should have a "hi" / " lo " mix - both MBTs and light tanks - but don't we already have this mix ? We only need to get them replaced.
With a small number of tankees , MBTs will ensure that tank crew casualties are minimized to fight another day in a high intensity battle. Easier to replace an MBT than a well trained & experienced tank crew. Light tanks shoud be used for supporting role in a battle - recon , screening , fire support etc.
Small number of MBTs ( 1 to 2 battalions ) and light tanks ( 3 to 5 battalions )
including reserves will be good. Good and realistic training will be better. -
If u did your research u would know then that tanks were not built for mud they were built to break enemy lines and demoralise infantryOriginally posted by moca:Dude, unlike you, I do a bit of research before making sweeping statements.
Why hold on to false notions?
-
How about AMX-30B2 with ERA
-
they were built to break through enemy lines no matter the weather conditions.it's 1st uses were on the mud fields of ww1.They were used to great effect in swamps and snow and mud of russia.The hills and mountains of greece.Originally posted by Tuki:If u did your research u would know then that tanks were not built for mud they were built to break enemy lines and demoralise infantry -
Tanks werent invented just because of muddy terran, they were built to be heavily armoured direct fire weapons to break the trench warfare stalement that WW1 had become.Originally posted by |-|05|:they were built to break through enemy lines no matter the weather conditions.it's 1st uses were on the mud fields of ww1.They were used to great effect in swamps and snow and mud of russia.The hills and mountains of greece. -
i never said they were invented just because of mud.I pointed out that mud and soft ground wasnt much of a problem for it.Originally posted by Tuki:Tanks werent invented just because of muddy terran, they were built to be heavily armoured direct fire weapons to break the trench warfare stalement that WW1 had become. -
I'm not sure about that....Originally posted by |-|05|:i never said they were invented just because of mud.I pointed out that mud and soft ground wasnt much of a problem for it.
Its more like, where wheeled vehicles would get stuck and immobilised, tracked vehicles of the same weight would remain mobile but slowed.
But where tracked vehicles would get stuck, wheelies would too.
Tracked vehicles would get slowed nonetheless. But its sure a hell lot better than wheelies who either get stuck or crawl. -
Talking abt wheels.......... Anyone noe the reason why our neighbours, namely Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines seem to have a huge inventory of wheeled vehicles? Isit bcos wheel easier to maintain?
-
This is a wiki-article for the M88A2 recovery vehicle used to recover the M1Abrams MBT.
There is also concern with loss of traction when an M88A2 tows a heavy M1 Abrams on a slope in wet, muddy conditions.
This is one of the factors to be considered when operating MBTs in our region. Recovering them may not be a simple task. -
Australians having a similar problem with their refurbished M1-A1Originally posted by khaiseng:Hi touchstone..
i believe you are talking out the signs that says that the flyover is only for class 5 veh of 42 tonnes or less... well, when we cannot use that bridge, we'll build one beside it.. nothing new for the bridging ppl, they can even build on a broken bridge..
unlike US where they need long distance power projection, in our context, SAF is unlikely required to project a force that far ahead. isn't it wastin more time to airlift the force than to drive straight there..
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=211761[/url] -
Talking abt wheels.......... Anyone noe the reason why our neighbours, namely Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines seem to have a huge inventory of wheeled vehicles? Isit bcos wheel easier to maintain?
wheeled vehicles are cheaper and require less logistical support. you just hop in and drive to whatever destination you want. in malaysia, for instance, u can see columns of condors making its way up and down the expressway. but with the acv300, its being transported on low loaders.
coupled with the focus against internal communist threat up to the late 80s, wheeled armored vehicles were more than sufficient and arguably better against hit and run insurgencies. -
I think we should consider getting Terrex for our ADF for greater mobility, protection and firepower and organised them much like the Styrkers in US in the likely event of peace-keeping missions in the future. In war time their ability to be rapidly deployed as compared to the tracked vehicles is definitely an asset when deployed for surprise rear hit and run attacks.
-
From the way the Terrex is being showcased at SAF shows do you think it is likely that it will soon be adopted?Originally posted by tankee1981:I think we should consider getting Terrex for our ADF for greater mobility, protection and firepower and organised them much like the Styrkers in US in the likely event of peace-keeping missions in the future. In war time their ability to be rapidly deployed as compared to the tracked vehicles is definitely an asset when deployed for surprise rear hit and run attacks.
If not adopted by SAF the Terrex will surely gone case as it is rare for SG-made vehicels to find foreign exporters. Even those that are currently in SAF inventory had not been the most successful in finding export opportunities, I believe. -
Hmm, last I saw the Terrex @ an exhibition... it definitely did not boast much of an armor protection...Originally posted by tankee1981:I think we should consider getting Terrex for our ADF for greater mobility, protection and firepower and organised them much like the Styrkers in US in the likely event of peace-keeping missions in the future. In war time their ability to be rapidly deployed as compared to the tracked vehicles is definitely an asset when deployed for surprise rear hit and run attacks.
When vehicles like the Terrex rapidly deploy, they need some preparation time. Chances are, they cannot afford the width to slap on ERA while being transported in an aircraft. So by the time they get on the ground, the crew still gotta work with it.
Without additional armor plating (weight), all u have is a light vehicle where a .50cal loaded with SLAP can kill. Limited firepower, and highly mobile on roads and firm terrain only. -
I think Turkey's using themOriginally posted by moca:From the way the Terrex is being showcased at SAF shows do you think it is likely that it will soon be adopted?
If not adopted by SAF the Terrex will surely gone case as it is rare for SG-made vehicels to find foreign exporters. Even those that are currently in SAF inventory had not been the most successful in finding export opportunities, I believe. -
I believe tanks in WWI were meant to overcome withering machine gun fire, cross trenches (with help of fascines if needed), move over muddy terrain that was often riddled with craters and crush barbed wire. These were factors that made charging trenches so fatal....gooey mud and barbed wire to slow you down so that Lewiss and Hotchkiss guns could mow you down.
Some pics of an M1 and a Stryker getting mired, despite the designer's best efforts to make them "all terrain"
-
LOL, that has GOT to be a Lieutenant's tank! No NCO would get their tank to submarine like that.
End quote.
The fun hasn't started yet. Wait til u see them drive in the behemoth recovery vehicle to pull out that M1A1.... Both kena stuck together.
As for the stryker... self explanatory. Wheel's sinks more and faster than tracks in mud. All the talk about shoot n scoot for "highly mobile" wheeled vehicles, ppl forget to think of situations where the vehicle "shoots n sinks" and can't scoot.
The only way u can have a ALL Terrain armored vehicle that can shoot and scoot regardless of terrain is when u rip the tracks and wheels out and make the damn thing hover.
Yeap. Star Wars Episode one got the right idea. -
Shoot n sink, haha, very funny...
Those pics of the M1 are actually the same vehicle. They are just arranged in opposite order. You actually see the same vehicle sinking deeper and deeper into the marsh.
Stryker wheels don't say lah...
Even without any training in physics, you can guestimate that a big fat body like this on skinny little wheels is not gonna get you far off road. -
Originally posted by Shotgun:
I think we both saw the same clip from youtube.
LOL, that has GOT to be a Lieutenant's tank! No NCO would get their tank to submarine like that.
End quote.
The fun hasn't started yet. Wait til u see them drive in the behemoth recovery vehicle to pull out that M1A1.... Both kena stuck together.
As for the stryker... self explanatory. Wheel's sinks more and faster than tracks in mud. All the talk about shoot n scoot for "highly mobile" wheeled vehicles, ppl forget to think of situations where the vehicle "shoots n sinks" and can't scoot.
The only way u can have a ALL Terrain armored vehicle that can shoot and scoot regardless of terrain is when u rip the tracks and wheels out and make the damn thing hover.
Yeap. Star Wars Episode one got the right idea. -
Perhaps SAF might consider an amphibious Terrex, one with water jet propulsion to arm the 21DIV, thus forming a battalion size mechanised troops that can be inserted to supplement fire power of the Guardsmen and also help securing, clearing the coastal region for friendly to land. Get a 105mm Variant and a 30mm cannon variant.Originally posted by tankee1981:I think we should consider getting Terrex for our ADF for greater mobility, protection and firepower and organised them much like the Styrkers in US in the likely event of peace-keeping missions in the future. In war time their ability to be rapidly deployed as compared to the tracked vehicles is definitely an asset when deployed for surprise rear hit and run attacks.
Sometimes I think why SAF die die must have a 120mm for the new LT can't the 105mm do the trick. I mean it is still quite potent. -
I agree that for a light tank a 105 mm gun will suffice. Also, it can carry more rounds & stay in the fight longer - but keep it away from an MBT. Anyway carry two or three rounds of latest 105 mm APFSDS rounds for self defence against an MBT.
However, to kill a modern MBT, make available a few options - AH64, Spike, Maverick, LGBs and to top it off a battalion or two of own MBTs with 120 mm will do the trick. -
where did u get this info from?Originally posted by equlus84:Sometimes I think why SAF die die must have a 120mm for the new LT can't the 105mm do the trick. -
It was discussed by United Defense last year when they mentioned the trialled 120mm smooth bore gun created stress in the then tested UDLP chassis for the Light Tank replacement.Originally posted by saline:where did u get this info from?