BUTT face to the pride of malaysia PT-91M?
-
Just look at all the Star Wars-type sci-fi movies. All the fighters and vehicles have a power generated "shield". So that's maybe where the next gen of armour protection would be
no joking, plasma shield were already being research.. unsuccessfully (or claimed to be unsucessful) -
Snowfox
you throw alot of smoke. You STILL have not state what "special" whatever you are from. Stop smoking lah.
Actually, future "tank" systems while may have the following of shields/APS, you will still need the concept of REAL armour. As such, research is also into the creation of modular new materials to be considered as Armour. (Metals/carbides/mixture/ceramic)
Now imagine, if you can create armour 1 inch think yet stronger and lighter than RHAe can you imagine what a block of that material will do in terms of protection?
The limitations to APS and Shieldings is of course ECMs and energy source.
At the end of the day you still need the real stuff. Smaller maybe. You will still need Heavy and Light Cavalry no matter what. -
the more i read this the more i think MAF did the right thing...
They only did the right thing if the stuff they are trying works.
It's one thing to have a concept, and another thing to implement it. For example, while our concept of trying to do 3G is the right thing, getting it to work currently is another thing.
Trying to signature manage their PT-91 is a good idea, but fighting in a future battlefield is a lot more then just that. In that respect I feel we are ahead, in getting onto the network centric revolution.
After all, a lot of future battles will be decided by the "soft" power of being able to share good information as quickly as possible and getting it to the right people at the right time.Originally posted by CM06:
I dunno what's up with this Snowfox thing, maybe I missed something.
[b]Snowfox
you throw alot of smoke. You STILL have not state what "special" whatever you are from. Stop smoking lah.
Actually, future "tank" systems while may have the following of shields/APS, you will still need the concept of REAL armour. As such, research is also into the creation of modular new materials to be considered as Armour. (Metals/carbides/mixture/ceramic)
Now imagine, if you can create armour 1 inch think yet stronger and lighter than RHAe can you imagine what a block of that material will do in terms of protection?
The limitations to APS and Shieldings is of course ECMs and energy source.
At the end of the day you still need the real stuff. Smaller maybe. You will still need Heavy and Light Cavalry no matter what.[/b]
But yes, countermeasures is not a solve-all to your problems. It is not the Iron Curtain in Red Alert so one must be wary to put their total trust in it. It is more of insurance.
But in terms of defending from hyperkinetic projectiles current materials technology might still be quite far behind in coming up with a pratical answer. It's always easier to destroy then create.
Hmm, maybe nanotubes might present an answer to this problem, but as they stand, it is still way too expensive to be made into body armour, let alone as AFV protection. -
To follow on nanotubes, they are quite a bit stronger then steel (RHa)... about over 300 times stronger (48,462 kN·m/kg vs. 154 kN·m/kg).
Though they might have other properities unsuitable for armour that require compositing them with other more traditional materials to make their use as armour viable.
Here's some 2 year old news:
http://www.physorg.com/news8947.htmlA year ago IsraCast reported on the development of the first commercial nano-based lubricant which was developed by the Israeli company ApNano materials. A year later we find ApNano working also on a wholly different application of their technology - shielding and protection. In recent research lead by Prof. Yan Qiu Zhu of the School of Mechanical, Materials and Manufacturing Engineering at the University of Nottingham, England, a sample of the ApNano material was subjected to severe shocks generated by a steel projectile traveling at velocities of up to 1.5 km/second. The material withstood the shock pressures generated by the impacts of up to 250 tons per square centimeter. This is approximately equivalent to dropping four diesel locomotives onto an area the size of oneÂ’s fingernail. During the test the material proved to be so strong that after the impact the samples remained essentially identical compared to the original material. Additionally, a recent study by Prof. J. M. Martin from Ecole Central de Lyon in France tested the new material under isostatic pressure and found it to be stable up to at least 350 tons/cm2.
But hey, at 1,500 USD a gram it isn't too cheap you know. -
Originally posted by tankfanatic:
the more i read this the more i think MAF did the right thing...
What's not to like about the PT-91M within the context of the TDM?
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
They only did the right thing if the stuff they are trying works.
It's one thing to have a concept, and another thing to implement it. For example, while our concept of trying to do 3G is the right thing, getting it to work currently is another thing.
Trying to signature manage their PT-91 is a good idea, but fighting in a future battlefield is a lot more then just that. In that respect I feel we are ahead, in getting onto the network centric revolution.
After all, a lot of future battles will be decided by the "soft" power of being able to share good information as quickly as possible and getting it to the right people at the right time.
Unlike the SAF, the TDM does not have a very comprehensive engineer bridging capability. They are more likely to rely on civilian infrastructure to achieve strategic mobility for their MBTs.
And as per what ST posted, they certainly do not share the advantage of sensor and information fusion that the SAF will have once the BMS is fully operational/implemented. I think it is a given that the TDM is well and truly behind the SAF in the Revolution in Military Affairs.
Given that, I think what they're attempting to do with PT-91M makes sense
Put yourself in their shoes ... in the event of a conflict with Singapore and the SAF pours Northwards across the Straits of Johore.
The TDM is outnumbered in sheer numbers for armoured platforms. This makes an open meeting engagement folly.
What they do have is strategic depth ... lots of it. They can afford to trade space for time.
Imagine a signature managed PT-91M sitting in prepared firing postions overwatching likely avenues of advance. Using it's small silhouette, signature management and close cover of vegetation, it is likely to remain "invisible" until it moves or fire.
Say it conducts a brief ambush engagement, reverse into the cover of the reverse slope and scoots to a prepared fallback position. This is where the improved powerpack, transmission and Diehl tracks start to make sense.
Given the likely engagement ranges, a hit by a KE APFSDS round from either party (PT-91M/Leo 2) is bound to mean game over for the other. Hence the upgraded FCS start to make sense too.
If the TDM can string together a zone of such penny packet ambush positions, they can quite effectively stall the momentum of any advance, assuming the SAF remains casualty conservative.
Heck, imagine if whole advance comes to a temporary stop because the commander of the lead element doesn't like the bloody nose he got and wants to regroup and let the following elements move up ... can you say Astros time? Enough to give the commanders of the lead and following elements a bloody headache.
This trading of depth buys them time to find other means to resolve the conflict.
I've never liked platform vs. platform d**k swinging contests ... reminds me too much of childhood game of trumps. As if my higher top speed means that my "card" beats your "card".
The raw capabilities of each system/platform has to be taken within the context of the operating environment, operational doctrine and the likely OPFOR.
Oh, BTW did I mention crew quality?
Cheers!
-
Hence the reason why SAF is developing a range of sensors. They are increasing the Elint so that the humint can be deployed MORE tactically to achieve eyeball accurate info.
For infomation, sensors do not just look for -things- -
Imagine a signature managed PT-91M sitting in prepared firing postions overwatching likely avenues of advance. Using it's small silhouette, signature management and close cover of vegetation, it is likely to remain "invisible" until it moves or fire.
Just one hitch to thier plan though... the PT-91M is best fighting from prepared positions (in the event of rapidly changing battlespace), due to its limited gun elevation and depression. If it needs to employ a fluid defence by using non-prepared positions, it would find itself unable to "hull down" properly compared to western models.
Say it conducts a brief ambush engagement, reverse into the cover of the reverse slope and scoots to a prepared fallback position. This is where the improved powerpack, transmission and Diehl tracks start to make sense.
This limits it's ability to make full use of whatever terrain it has to play a battle. For example, the limited depression of the soviet-style tanks was well known by the Israelis when they often engaged Arab armour in places where they knew their enemy tanks had to fully climb a berm in order to get a proper shot while the Israelis could hunker down behind a berm and get off their shots exposing only the turret.
Hence this tank would actually be unable to fight from behind a reverse slope, unless it was a prepared position that had taken out the slope.
But I'm sure the MAF have though about it, and have found ways to make up for it. Dozer blades for their tanks to dig their own positions maybe? But in a fluid battle it might be totally different.
Think their attempts to signature-manage is a response to the SAF's 3G abilities? I am no expert in the area of sensors so I'll reserve comment on how effective the measures of each side is.
And of course, I'm not entirely sure the SAF intends to pit armour on armour. The Leo2s were aquired as a counter to the PT-91M, no doubt, but they probably have more in mind for it then tank hunting. -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
That's certainly the way I see it and I believe, unless they have delusions of grandeur, that's the way an astute OPFOR commander will see it too ...
Just one hitch to thier plan though... the PT-91M is best fighting from prepared positions (in the event of rapidly changing battlespace), due to its limited gun elevation and depression. If it needs to employ a fluid defence by using non-prepared positions, it would find itself unable to "hull down" properly compared to western models.
This limits it's ability to make full use of whatever terrain it has to play a battle. For example, the limited depression of the soviet-style tanks was well known by the Israelis when they often engaged Arab armour in places where they knew their enemy tanks had to fully climb a berm in order to get a proper shot while the Israelis could hunker down behind a berm and get off their shots exposing only the turret.
Hence this tank would actually be unable to fight from behind a reverse slope, unless it was a prepared position that had taken out the slope.
It's to our advantage to try to flank them and create dynamic engagements where our better sensor and networking technology should give us the edge. Looking at our ORBAT, that seems to be the way we're geared to fight.
It's to their advantage to try to force set piece engagements where such "soft" advantages are mitigated. Ideally, they will try to force the pace down and turn it into attrition warfare.And of course, I'm not entirely sure the SAF intends to pit armour on armour. The Leo2s were aquired as a counter to the PT-91M, no doubt, but they probably have more in mind for it then tank hunting.
I think any commander worth his salt will not pigeon-hole his assets and will instead seek to use combined arms against all.
-
For the record, IINM, the gun depression/elevation limits for the 2 tanks are
T-72 ... -6/+14
Leo 2 ... -9/+20
(though I'm not sure if the redesigned breech block for the 2A46MS affects the max depression for the Pt-91M) -
PT91m can dig in on its own, ive seen the pic. It use its tracks
-
Originally posted by CM06:
Snowfox
you throw alot of smoke. You STILL have not state what "special" whatever you are from. Stop smoking lah.
Hint Hint, My Active Unit is one of the "lucky Ones". When send to "Kanji Karaoke" Just Shave your Hair, and walk over.Originally posted by CM06:
Smoke
Actually, future "tank" systems while may have the following of shields/APS, you will still need the concept of REAL armour. As such, research is also into the creation of modular new materials to be considered as Armour. (Metals/carbides/mixture/ceramic)
Now imagine, if you can create armour 1 inch think yet stronger and lighter than RHAe can you imagine what a block of that material will do in terms of protection?
The Armour you describe is called Chobham armour (60s Design, by still in used) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour.
When you Push People, Perpare to be Push Back. Hey CM06, What Unit did you serve? Still Serving ? -
There's a bulldozer blade of sorts on the underside of most Soviet Tanks.Originally posted by tankfanatic:PT91m can dig in on its own, ive seen the pic. It use its tracks -
Originally posted by kotay:
When Talking about Smoke, cannot compare with you, as you constantly show superior in this area. Gather that you served in SCE.
Granted this was in 1998 and it has changed since then. The Galix is now being paired up with Giat's KBCM to provide automated response slaved to the LWR (amongst other things). See also here
[b]Everything you always wanted to know about smoke ... or not
The US Army Field Manual FM 3-50 is a good primer on the military use of smoke.
Of Particular interest is
- Appendix G: Obscurants and how they work
- Appendix B: Electro Optical Systems
Have fun reading ...
[/b]
Back to Topic
Galix
There is one small thing that alot of Military Marketing Material has not tell.
Galix is a popular option for Leopard Tank. (It's Calim that Leopard Tank Beat the American M1 in the Swedish Trail, partly because Leopard offer had Galix),
Sob sob,our great military general don't like it.
Cannot recall where read/hear this, but in Gulf War 1991, Galix were tested in Battle.
Technologies is the Answer To All our Problem Mentality
APS is still under going testing. The Manufacturers are telling that the Solution will End ATGM/RPG Threat.
The Systems Need to be Battle Tested. Alot of Technologies promised alot during peace time exercise, but crack under the "pressure" of battle.
Sorry repeat posting.
Kotay, show us your strenght in Research regarding this Topic Thread
Why not Enlighten Us, as to the Thinking Behind the Design of T-72(T-91) and Leopard Tank, both were mean to Face off each other During the Cold War. -
Hint Hint, My Active Unit is one of the "lucky Ones". When send to "Kanji Karaoke" Just Shave your Hair, and walk over
R E M F is writen all over your post! -
Would you guys say the PT-91 is well-protected against the Matador and the 84mm RR? Cos these are the more common AT weapons of SAF. The ATGM is few by comparison.
-
How does a tank dig with tracks? And what shape hole does it dig?Originally posted by tankfanatic:PT91m can dig in on its own, ive seen the pic. It use its tracks -
i seen the pic only and some notes that said it was digging the hole by it self. honestly i dont know how. the first time i heard about this is from an engineer friend of mine talking about malaysian tank can dig hole on the ground by it self....im sceptical so i done some research and found the pic. I'll post it when i came back.
-
I don't think the MATADOR was ever intended to defeat modern MBTs with ERA packages and what have you not... not from the front at least.Originally posted by moca:Would you guys say the PT-91 is well-protected against the Matador and the 84mm RR? Cos these are the more common AT weapons of SAF. The ATGM is few by comparison. -
Don't forget height plays a factor as well, the closer you are to the ground, the less effective your ability to make use of your gun depression.Originally posted by kotay:For the record, IINM, the gun depression/elevation limits for the 2 tanks are
T-72 ... -6/+14
Leo 2 ... -9/+20
(though I'm not sure if the redesigned breech block for the 2A46MS affects the max depression for the Pt-91M)
I think they actually did a diagram of it, of how a T-72 fares againsts an Abrams in the hull-down area:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hull_down_tank_diagram.png
But of course, you must realize the Soviets never intended their tanks to be doing much fighting by camping behind a ridge, their armoured doctorine was to chiong into the enemy with as many tanks as possible. -
any dozer blade of any mbt is meant to clear obstacles, not to dig holes like a dozer. the engineers will build prepared positions for the mbts with proper machines. but then again, you can dig holes with mess tins can you? he he...Originally posted by tankfanatic:i seen the pic only and some notes that said it was digging the hole by it self. honestly i dont know how. the first time i heard about this is from an engineer friend of mine talking about malaysian tank can dig hole on the ground by it self....im sceptical so i done some research and found the pic. I'll post it when i came back. -
Snowfox:
Yeah well i'm done serving. AI. Hq. Ops. Oh that kind of "lucky ones". Nvm much then. Was hoping you came from MI. Hard to find people from that unit here.
--------
Likelihood is that we can catch another glimpse of the PT-91m when our neighbours have their National Day in ..erm is it september? We can have a look what they put on the outside at least.
By the way anyone able to find out if one of ST subsidiaries actually makes thermal sights? I think i read it somewhere but cant find it again. Maybe we have our own sights in our Leos.
Maybe by the end of this year we will have more news on how our Leos are be like in detail.
---------
Regarding dozer blades - there's Leo2 version meant for urban/counterinsurgency fighting and comes with it, the picture is posted in the topic of the centurion pics i think. It's more for pushing barricades aside. To dig a tank trench/ditch you need engineering vehicles. -
Originally posted by tankfanatic:R E M F is writen all over your post! A Start of a Flame War.
Not Interested in engaging with you, (tankfanatic) Don't think you are familiar with that particular Camp complex.
More interested in the Topic Thread.Originally posted by tankfanatic:
PT91m can dig in on its own, ive seen the pic. It use its tracks
general, sorry didn't send the memo to you.
Tank Self Digging In
Not Frequently practiced with SM-1, but most Tracks, in the right ground conditions, with a dozer blade can dig in. (Tanks are just "Caterpillars" with Guns) The Swedes use to do alot digging with the Strv 103.
In the right situation, sometime don't even need a dozer blade (Sometime intentional, others accidental) A Track can dig itself in.
Picture of a Tank Digging in. (Oplot MBT, diverative of T-80UD)
Whyt not practise more often
Usually, go in, creating the Protection earth mound is easier, than extracting the Track from the mound. Using Engineering Asserts to create a Tank Trench is recommended. -
Originally posted by snowfox_my:
I could swear the armour he described is more accurately termed "composite armour". Chobham is a type of composite armour but not the only type ... y'know ... kinda like how all carrots are vegetables but not all vegetables are carrots ... ? But of course, you da man ... I'm quite sure you're 100% correct.
The Armour you describe is called Chobham armour (60s Design, by still in used) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour.
What's with the 3 x anyway? You laughing at people's mistakes or lack of knowledge? -
A Start of a Flame War.
i didnt mean too. lol
Not Interested in engaging with you, (tankfanatic) Don't think you are familiar with that particular Camp complex.
More interested in the Topic Thread.
what i meant is the way you post seems like a REMF kind of soldier not a combat element guys.
REMF is a mil jargon, any mil guys know this, i thought you knew it too. -
Originally posted by CM06:
Not sure about this, was told MI People have to sign OSA, thus nothing of such nature can ever see the light of day.
Snowfox:
Yeah well i'm done serving. AI. Hq. Ops. Oh that kind of "lucky ones". Nvm much then. Was hoping you came from MI. Hard to find people from that unit here.
--------
Likelihood is that we can catch another glimpse of the PT-91m when our neighbours have their National Day in ..erm is it september? We can have a look what they put on the outside at least.
In Armour family, I consider my postings, very lucky. Unlike now days (Sorry Old stories) the camp were further from Civilization. My was considered the nearest, as the Camp had a semi-secret reason to be.
Not sure if the T-72 is still there
Goto ATAC, in Gudong, there use to have one there for show and tell. (Sorry the last few times there, just bypass ATAC and head for the canteens)
The Malaysian bought a respectable tank. Within their terrain, the light weight and wide tracks will allow it alot of room to move.
