SAF MBT
-
The previous thread expired.... so I am starting a new thread.
Our AMX-13 continue to age. Still no news of a replacement.
And our 32nd Armd Division continue to be a myth. -
Just wait lor...Originally posted by spencer99:The previous thread expired.... so I am starting a new thread.
Our AMX-13 continue to age. Still no news of a replacement.
And our 32nd Armd Division continue to be a myth. -
Even if people who knows also shouldn't or cannot say. So all we can do is to wait for the official announcements from Mindef.
-
Don't change lah...wait later taxes will increase to cover the cost
-
Maybe the GST rise of 2% to 7% is to pay for 'the poor' (SAF).......
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2 -
hmm.. I like the Swiss model. Very innovative.Originally posted by ChineseJunk:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2
-
I think the replacement of the AMX13 has long been on the minds of our military planners. This article appeared 2 years ago and I'm sure more developments are in the pipeline.
I think one of the issues facing the procurement of a tank suitable for the SAF is the lack of a suitable lightweight tank similar in size to the AMX13. Developing an indigenous solution is no small effort and can take years to realize. With the development effort on the Bionix coming to a close, perhaps more resources can be devoted to the development of a tank for the SAF.
-
Actually, if the Centurion (or Tempest) exists, as I believe they do, then technically, we are replacing the Tempest if we do acquire or make MBTs.
The AMX-13 is a light tank, and should be replaced by any light tank, no? -
When we first have the AMX-13. Our M113s are armed with only 12.7mm HMG.Originally posted by moca:Actually, if the Centurion (or Tempest) exists, as I believe they do, then technically, we are replacing the Tempest if we do acquire or make MBTs.
The AMX-13 is a light tank, and should be replaced by any light tank, no?
The AMX13's 75mm gun will be useful as a fire support vehicle.
But right now, our BXs are armed with 25mm/30mm canon and also 12.7mm HMG/40mm AGLs.
With such firepower, i doubt we need a light tank any more.
We will need MBTs to counter other MBTs and to continue to process the aggressive pre-emptive strike capability of SAF's ground forces. -
I don't think the 25mm or the 40/50 combo can match the power of a 75mm gun. Plus you only need many 25mm or 40mm grenade to do the job of one round of 75mm.Originally posted by spencer99:When we first have the AMX-13. Our M113s are armed with only 12.7mm HMG.
The AMX13's 75mm gun will be useful as a fire support vehicle.
But right now, our BXs are armed with 25mm/30mm canon and also 12.7mm HMG/40mm AGLs.
With such firepower, i doubt we need a light tank any more.
Haha, this statement might open up a lot of differing opinions.Originally posted by spencer99:We will need MBTs to counter other MBTs and to continue to process the aggressive pre-emptive strike capability of SAF's ground forces.
Although I am all in favour of MBT, but not necessarily to counter another MBT. But I think the armour protection of MBT level is necessary even against soft targets. ANd a big 105mm or 120mm gun is very useful for FIBUA when you want to knock out a strongly fortified objective. -
Just don't sink and get stuck in the mud will do
-
Originally posted by lyzzard:I think the replacement of the AMX13 has long been on the minds of our military planners. This article appeared 2 years ago and I'm sure more developments are in the pipeline.
I think one of the issues facing the procurement of a tank suitable for the SAF is the lack of a suitable lightweight tank similar in size to the AMX13. Developing an indigenous solution is no small effort and can take years to realize. With the development effort on the Bionix coming to a close, perhaps more resources can be devoted to the development of a tank for the SAF.
cool article -
Assuming the Tempest really exists, even they are getting quite old & a replacement would probably be a good idea. If we are able to equip our IFVs with say a spike launcher, then PERHAPS we could do without light tanks & just get MBTs instead.
-
Is Wiki Sources are Correct ? Singapore did purchase the Centurions ?
-
I read a report why major armour-operating countries like US, Russia, China, Israel etc are still building tanks with bigger and bigger guns instead of just relying on ATGMs.Originally posted by sgf:Assuming the Tempest really exists, even they are getting quite old & a replacement would probably be a good idea. If we are able to equip our IFVs with say a spike launcher, then PERHAPS we could do without light tanks & just get MBTs instead.
In a scenario of 2 opposing AFVs - one with a 120mm gun and the other with a ATGM - spotting each other at the same time and firing at the same time, the gun tank will get off the first shot earlier and hit the target well before the one armed with ATGM.
The ATGM flies a lot slower than a gun projectile.
Also, during the Yom Kippur War, where ATGM were first used on a massive scale, IDF tanks eventually developed tactics to try and "dodge" the Sagger if they were lucky enough to spot them early on.
Furthermore, a tank gun with different types of ammo is still more versatile than a ATGM-armed vehicle. In one Fallujah battle (on Youtube), the US Bradley fired a ATGM at a house when the 25mm proved unable to demolish the walls or something. Not only is a ATGM less effective against a bunker but also a hell lot more expensive. -
It's always been a rumour.Originally posted by Seth35:Is Wiki Sources are Correct ? Singapore did purchase the Centurions ? -
how does thread get expire one ar?Originally posted by spencer99:The previous thread expired.... so I am starting a new thread.
Our AMX-13 continue to age. Still no news of a replacement.
And our 32nd Armd Division continue to be a myth. -
New thread made sticky to replace old one
Cheers! -
Thank you for putting my thread a "sticky" thread!
as for the "fire support" comment. Is it worth while to have a seperate AFV "just" to provide fire support?
which other army have this type of concept...
If we "really" need a large caliber "gun" for fire support. It would be better to have a BX with a 90mm Low velocity gun... similar to the AMX10P-90mm.
I would much rather have a MBT to have duo roles, both as in the MBAT "battlesfield domination" role and fire support... -
Erm,I'm sure if its even possible but can take out the AMX-13 turret and stick it on a new chasis? Since the greatest gripe is simply the armour...why not do what Singapore does best,upgrade.Originally posted by spencer99:Thank you for putting my thread a "sticky" thread!
as for the "fire support" comment. Is it worth while to have a seperate AFV "just" to provide fire support?
which other army have this type of concept...
If we "really" need a large caliber "gun" for fire support. It would be better to have a BX with a 90mm Low velocity gun... similar to the AMX10P-90mm.
I would much rather have a MBT to have duo roles, both as in the MBAT "battlesfield domination" role and fire support... -
I am trained in the AMX-13 SM1...trust me, its a bad idea to reuse the turret on a new hull...Originally posted by fallin:Erm,I'm sure if its even possible but can take out the AMX-13 turret and stick it on a new chasis? Since the greatest gripe is simply the armour...why not do what Singapore does best,upgrade. -
AMX13 has a bad turret design... ok for the 1950s, but modern tanks have stabilized guns.. AMX13 turret cannot be upgraded coz main gun is 'stuck' with turret. Stabilizing the whole turret is too much work. Which is why, no matter how much work ST put into our SM1, it cannot fire on the move.Originally posted by fallin:Erm,I'm sure if its even possible but can take out the AMX-13 turret and stick it on a new chasis? Since the greatest gripe is simply the armour...why not do what Singapore does best,upgrade. -
Newer tanks than the AMX-13 are being retired from front line service.
The fact that the AMX-13 is still in service is NOT because it is still a sound AFV. I think it is simply because Singapore does not consider having newer or better tanks a huge priority - for a variety of reasons that I do not know.
The AMX-13 is an extremely odd design in both the chassis and turret, making it unsuitabe for most kinds of upgrading.
The turret design seems to be unique to the AMX-13 and maybe one other European tank also used a similar design. But no one else consider this odd turret design worth continuing, not even the French themselves.
No point wasting any more money on the AMX-13. -
I suppose they do fit the role for homeland security, acting as infantry fire support in our urban areas.