BUTT face to the pride of malaysia PT-91M?
-
Er... since when do weapon bans affect us? As it is, we still use land mines despite the treaty on the ban. We aren't a signatory, and frankly, the US wouldn't be either.
-
You will eat your word when you saw what cluster munition did to children in lebanon. Israel also said their Cluster munition have -neutralising or self-destruct capability, i wonder why its still explode.
When it comes to war I think we will be using cluster munitions with wild abandon, be they having a blind rate of 10-30% or not.
Cluster munitions will not be much good against ERA, but there are plenty of spots on top of an MBT like the Twardy that you cannot cover with ERA, and very often the spots where the ERA is has baseline armour that cannot be penetrated by AP cluster munitions anyway, so it's a moot point.
In any case, nobody wants to be under cluster bombardment.try to use that knowledge and fire a lahat here...
As for top attack ATGMs, you need clear airspace to engage the target... HOWEVER any MBT itself can't possibly squeeze into dense jungle without requiring some kind of clearing or the like and that's where you will want to engage them anyway.
In fact an MBT in dense jungle is pretty useless, given it can't even bring it's gun to bear without getting trapped. So I think it's a moot point... if you see an MBT chances are you are already in a good spot to try for a top attack ATGM.
That aside, different tools for different jobs. Top attack can't be used in all of the cases, but it's another thing to say that our terrain prevents any kind of its use at all.yes but astros have effect a bigger area
Once again different tools for different jobs. While rockets are great for sending a huge amount of explosives to the target in as short an amount of time as possible, tube arty will eventually send more weight of HE over time, and with it being more precise as well, a reason why tube arty still has its place. The logistics for tube arty is a lot easier to work out, as well as less vulnerable to distruption.
At the end of the day it's how you fight. Obviously having ASTROS suits the Malaysian needs, given they know they can't really go toe-to-toe with SAF tube arty and the ASTROS is a good way of getting more explosives into the arty fight- even if it's in not a very precise way. -
means it probably could handle the cluster munition.
As I already said, hitting the part of the turret roof that is w/o ERA.
T-72 like any other tanks that are designed before 80s did not face any top attack ATGM and cluster munitions then , thus the armour on top of turret and back are protected with less than 30mm RHA or less.
Nowadays , tanks are being uparmoured to reduce this threat , for example Leo2( I think A5 onward), that have hatches that are so heavy ( I heard is above 100kg), they are now unable to be opened by the crew manually but by using mechanical crank or by electrical driven hatches.
Since the PT-91M has no significant weight increases, I doubt that such thing uparmouring has been done to the turret roof and the back.“In May of 2000, there were presentations of Dynamit Nobel Panzerfaust 3 anti-tank grenade launchers for Polish Army as a part of marketing campaign. There were firing tests of Panzerfaust 3 armed with 3T and improved 3-T600 tandem HEAT warheads (Dynamit Nobel claims that 3T is capable of piercing 900mm RHA behind ERA and 3-T600 over 1000mm RHA behind ERA at the hitting angle of 90 degrees). On Polish testing ground 3T was fired upon armoured steel plates of 550mm RHA screened with Erawa-2 at the hitting angle of 30 degrees and 3T-600 was fired at the similar target at hitting angle of 15 degrees. In both situations German warheads pierced through Erawa-2 but then were capable of penetrating only about 400mm of RHA. Germans were surprised by the protecting level gave by Erawa-2.”
This is exactly the test I asked you look at.
And I repeat:DonÂ’t be fooled by colourful presentation above, the results at 30 and 60 degrees and not at the optimum of 90 degrees( or 0 degrees of incidence , depending on how you measure it from) do not look impressive at all, let me explain, the baseline T-72M1 has armour protection of 480mm against CE, and with the fact that (rough estimation) at 30 deg(or 60 deg) only abt have half of the original penetration power and at 15 deg( or 75 deg) I think only abt have less than 1/3 of the original penetration power and they have already penetrated 400mm RHA!!!!
Let me give you a bit more info
So in reality, Panzerfaust 3T at below 60 deg of incidence and Panzerfaust 3-T600 at below 75 deg of incidence will most likely able to penetrate the PT-91M even at itÂ’s thickest armour!!!!
Penetration power are calculated based on many factor and one factor is the angle of impact( using the angle of incidence).
So let say Pmax is the maximum penetration of a projectile( which at 0 deg of incidence).
Now look at the Pzf 3T at the angle of impact is 60 deg of incidence
= COSINE 60 x Pmax= 0.5 Pmax
and Pzf 3T600 at the angle of impact is 75 deg of incidence
= COSINE 75 x Pmax = 0.26 Pmax
And both has already penetrated 400mm RHA at those angle, calculate them with a lower angle as above , you will know they will penetrate all 480mm RHA of the T-72M1!!!!You will eat your word when you saw what cluster munition did to children in lebanon. Israel also said their Cluster munition have -neutralising or self-destruct capability, i wonder why its still explode.
As someone already mentioned, such treaties means nothing if the nation dun bother to adhere to it, for example banning of AP mines , US and SG are both non signatories, therefore they will still use them if the need arises, so I am sure SAF still has a large stockpiles of them, and I believe will be used when the time comes!!!
As for cluster munitions, there is still no ban treaty atm, in fact it is only the movement of the European and not all of them agree to a total ban , & still got nothing to do with the rest of the world.I meant MLRS using guided munition. Its been used extensively during GW1.
There is no guided munition for MLRS in GW1 period!!!yes but astros have effect a bigger area
The spread is so wide that it is useless tactically,it only a small percentage will hit the target!!!
Do you know that US army banned the use of unguided munition of MLRS to be used near any civilian population in Iraq and this rule does not apply to tube arty???
The reason is becos of the wide spread and poor accuracy of unguided rockets, that is why I said they are obsolete!!!!you mean the katyusha fired by the hezbollah?
All the unguided rockets, tactically they are useless above 40km, and get worst at longer range due to their poor CEP.
The picture I posted where Trajectory correction rocket vs unguided rocket said it all.
The CEP of the tube arty is just slightly smaller than the Trajectory correction rocket , so it will land on just slightly smaller circle as compare to the above, as for the unguided munition , it will be all the blue dots.
There is why I said the effectiveness of tube arty is tsill better than any unguided rockets. -
Remember EX Forging Sabre, tube arty will be the first strike using their cluster munitions against enemy armour column in this intergrated strike operation.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/xfs/anim.swf -
As I already said, hitting the part of the turret roof that is w/o ERA.
okT-72 like any other tanks that are designed before 80s did not face any top attack ATGM and cluster munitions then , thus the armour on top of turret and back are protected with less than 30mm RHA or less.
for now i agree with you, but im in a process of reviewing certain pic of PT91 M turret. Cheers
Nowadays , tanks are being uparmoured to reduce this threat , for example Leo2( I think A5 onward), that have hatches that are so heavy ( I heard is above 100kg), they are now unable to be opened by the crew manually but by using mechanical crank or by electrical driven hatches.
Since the PT-91M has no significant weight increases, I doubt that such thing uparmouring has been done to the turret roof and the back.This is exactly the test I asked you look at.
ok. so how to achieve 60 deg and 75 deg hit during combat? and also how to achieve 90 or 0 deg hit too? im interested. thanks
And I repeat:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DonÂ’t be fooled by colourful presentation above, the results at 30 and 60 degrees and not at the optimum of 90 degrees( or 0 degrees of incidence , depending on how you measure it from) do not look impressive at all, let me explain, the baseline T-72M1 has armour protection of 480mm against CE, and with the fact that (rough estimation) at 30 deg(or 60 deg) only abt have half of the original penetration power and at 15 deg( or 75 deg) I think only abt have less than 1/3 of the original penetration power and they have already penetrated 400mm RHA!!!!
So in reality, Panzerfaust 3T at below 60 deg of incidence and Panzerfaust 3-T600 at below 75 deg of incidence will most likely able to penetrate the PT-91M even at itÂ’s thickest armour!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------As someone already mentioned, such treaties means nothing if the nation dun bother to adhere to it, for example banning of AP mines , US and SG are both non signatories, therefore they will still use them if the need arises, so I am sure SAF still has a large stockpiles of them, and I believe will be used when the time comes!!!
its still hounting me seeing small kids without limb playing football in cambodia, and it even hurt me that some of the mines were made by singapore.
As for cluster munitions, there is still no ban treaty atm, in fact it is only the movement of the European and not all of them agree to a total ban , & still got nothing to do with the rest of the world.There is no guided munition for MLRS in GW1 period!!!
i thought i saw a clip of it in you tube.... probaly its GW2 and the author mistakenly wrote GW1 in the title.The spread is so wide that it is useless tactically,it only a small percentage will hit the target!!!
its an area effect weapon. what do you think will happen if a battery of Astross send a salvoes on top of a forward hq?
Do you know that US army banned the use of unguided munition of MLRS to be used near any civilian population in Iraq and this rule does not apply to tube arty???
The reason is becos of the wide spread and poor accuracy of unguided rockets, that is why I said they are obsolete!!!!All the unguided rockets, tactically they are useless above 40km, and get worst at longer range due to their poor CEP.
ok
The picture I posted where Trajectory correction rocket vs unguided rocket said it all. -
ok. so how to achieve 60 deg and 75 deg hit during combat? and also how to achieve 90 or 0 deg hit too? im interested. thanks
It depends on many factors, the difference in elevation between you and the target, the way the target is facing you, the properties of your rounds and many other things that affect the way your munition hits the armour.
Obviously the optimal way to splash your target is to achieve a 90 deg hit with your warhead, but given that tank armour is sloped this is not often possible. If you fire straight on at a PT-91M's frontal hull armour (assuming the tank is flat and level with you as well), you will probably achieve much shallower angles of hit.
There is a reason why armour is sloped.
On the other hand, if you are splashing the tank from an elevated position, your warhead is going to hit closer to 90 degrees, and hence the penetration power will be increased.
But the best is to go for the hull sides and turret, where the armour has virtually no slope at all, not to mention the armoured hide there is thinner as well. In any case it's foolhardly to directly engage an MBT in the frontal arc, given that's the most likely arc the tank can return immediate fire when you engage it.
Flanking it and catching it in the side works better.its still hounting me seeing small kids without limb playing football in cambodia, and it even hurt me that some of the mines were made by singapore.
Might as well say that the VT shootings making us feel guilty about having invented guns at all.
At the end of the day the weapon is just a weapon, how people use it is another thing altogether. In the end, a tool is just a tool. Want somebody to blame? Blame the dudes who decide to plant mines with reckless disregard for just about everybody else and the future.its an area effect weapon. what do you think will happen if a battery of Astross send a salvoes on top of a forward hq?
\
Depends on the range, the huge CEP of rocket arty makes it useful for sending a lot of explosives in a very short time into a large area, however the actual mass of exposives it can send per unit area over distance is a lot less then tube arty.
So while the forward HQ may take several hits, if they have been dug in properly they will most likely survive... unless the enemy is like the Yanks who can really toss plenty of rockets at you with impunity without the real need to shoot and scoot given they had already established superiority over their hapless enemy.
I doubt the Malaysians will see the same situtation with their ASTROS, if the SAF's counter battery and RSAF does its job properly.
MLRS is great for catching large masses of targets out in the open with minimal protection given its saturation effect, however it is a lot less useful when trying root out a properly dug in enemy force, in which tube arty, with its ability to consistently send HE to a smaller CEP would be far more useful.
This is also very important in urban battles, where the landscape can provide plenty of cover from saturation attacks. It would simply take too many rockets to root out a properly established and dug in forward HQ at distance, not to mention a lot of the destruction would be wasted on nothing.
In which case tube arty is a lot more useful at sending your enemy packing.
Once again, different tools for different jobs. MLRS is great for sending stuff to an enemy that is advancing on you and lacks proper cover, this is when the ability of the rocket arty to saturate an area with explosives works the best.
But properly dug in an harderned targets require more then the MLRS grid square removal effect, you got to send HE into a small CEP over a period of time. -
The MLRS can be an effective psychological weapon. Being hit by one, in its full saturation and coverage area can incapacitate a unit temporarily. The human factor being the most vulnerable, physically and mentally affected by the sudden but thunderous volume of fire.
As an Area Denial System, its able to fill an area with cluster munitions that can be lethal to personnel and soft skinned vehicles, (mostly logistics and support vehicles) Hurting those may actually hurt the unit more than just taking out their tanks and armored vehicles.
Residual dud-munitions also need to be meticulously removed before any advance can continue especially with the presence of soft-skinned support vehicles.
Have a healthy respect for these one hit wonders. Their one hit can cause a world of hurt if not prepare. Thankfully our friends north, only got a few of these weapons. -
Thank god I'm friends with engineers. They have the right tools to aid us. That i'm sure.
I'm also positive we have Area Denial Capabilities and they sure arent one hit wonders either. -
oh u said knockout not destroy a m1 sorry me pa jiao.... to destroy a pt 91??? im sure sg has alot of tech to handle those pt91s eg. apache and those about to arrive leopards which i think those 120mms can destroy the pt 91. those matadors are not for pt91s or tanks i tink like jeeps/apc
-
Dude matador worst performance i give it is 400mm RHA..
That's 40 cm of RHA...it can take on everything in the region below the weight of 40 tons. IOW new mbts not possible(and only head on)
Dont waste it on Jeeps and trucks! -
Please read thru thr thread, the debate was not on cluster munition but the delivery system, tube arty with much better CEP will delivered the cluster munition much more efffectively against the target as compare to unguided rocket of MLRS system.Originally posted by Shotgun:The MLRS can be an effective psychological weapon. Being hit by one, in its full saturation and coverage area can incapacitate a unit temporarily. The human factor being the most vulnerable, physically and mentally affected by the sudden but thunderous volume of fire.
As an Area Denial System, its able to fill an area with cluster munitions that can be lethal to personnel and soft skinned vehicles, (mostly logistics and support vehicles) Hurting those may actually hurt the unit more than just taking out their tanks and armored vehicles.
Residual dud-munitions also need to be meticulously removed before any advance can continue especially with the presence of soft-skinned support vehicles.
Have a healthy respect for these one hit wonders. Their one hit can cause a world of hurt if not prepare. Thankfully our friends north, only got a few of these weapons. -
Sorry if I may have misunderstood the point.
For an MLRS, no one really wants a tight CEP, and especially so with cluster munitions. MLRS is best suited for Area Denial. You have enough of those, you can blanket an area full of a mixture of cluster munitions, some with delayed fuses even.
Such a weapon, properly used, manned by skilled operators, with proper doctrine, can slow an advance force down and regain the initiative. Its advantage is its wide area. Look at the CEP comparison of trajectory guided rockets vs unguided. Give each of those a blue dot of 300m munitions footprint, and see how much coverage u have.
Just cos a buckshot from a shotgun cant make a tight group against a .22 rifle, doesn't mean the shotgun/buckshot ain't good. -
Hello all!
Gary1910, I think you understand ERAWA-2 tests with Panzerfaust-3 in wrong way. Angles of 15o and 30o are very close to average hit angles of hull and turret of tanks from T-72 family. So these tests results show real penetration of Panzerfaust-3 after ERAWA-2 and Panzerfaust-3 cannot pierce turret of PT-91 covered by ERAWA-2. But please dont mix PT-91 with PT-91M. Details of PT-91M armour are clasified but one thing is known, PT-91M has new armour of hull and turret, much possibly with ceramcs and probably much more potent. It has also new, improved and lighter (due to aluminium boxes) version of ERAWA-2. You cited comments of some Polish tanker, but please pay attention that he compared our Leopard 2A4 with PT-91. PT-91M is different tank that PT-91. In my opinion PT-91M is more capable than Leopard 2A4, mainly because of:
- SAVAN-15 FCS which has capabilities only marginally lower that Leclerc FCS,
- new gun stabilisation system,
- all electric turret,
- new gun with accuracy 20% better than basic 2A46.
Sorry but I think that your MATADORS and your Leopards 2A4 (if not modernised) are no threat to Malaysian PT-91M. Even Spikes. We have also Spikes in Poland and know that this missile is not fully effective in short ranges and in wet conditions with fog, low level of clouds etc. In case of Singapore - urban and jungle conditions - your Spikes also could be not so effective like in theory. -
welcome! a polish forumner! i have unconfirmed info that the ceramic armor were inside the turret? is this true? i dont know the logic behind it?
thanks, cheers -
Originally posted by Wosiu:
how much more powerful is the PT-91M armor vs PT-91 armor? isit 2x, 3x, 5x or 10x more powerful then PT-91?
Hello all!
Gary1910, I think you understand ERAWA-2 tests with Panzerfaust-3 in wrong way. Angles of 15o and 30o are very close to average hit angles of hull and turret of tanks from T-72 family. So these tests results show real penetration of Panzerfaust-3 after ERAWA-2 and Panzerfaust-3 cannot pierce turret of PT-91 covered by ERAWA-2. But please dont mix PT-91 with PT-91M. Details of PT-91M armour are clasified but one thing is known, PT-91M has [b]new armour of hull and turret, much possibly with ceramcs and probably much more potent. It has also new, improved and lighter (due to aluminium boxes) version of ERAWA-2. You cited comments of some Polish tanker, but please pay attention that he compared our Leopard 2A4 with PT-91. PT-91M is different tank that PT-91. In my opinion PT-91M is more capable than Leopard 2A4, mainly because of:
- SAVAN-15 FCS which has capabilities only marginally lower that Leclerc FCS,
- new gun stabilisation system,
- all electric turret,
- new gun with accuracy 20% better than basic 2A46.
Sorry but I think that your MATADORS and your Leopards 2A4 (if not modernised) are no threat to Malaysian PT-91M. Even Spikes. We have also Spikes in Poland and know that this missile is not fully effective in short ranges and in wet conditions with fog, low level of clouds etc. In case of Singapore - urban and jungle conditions - your Spikes also could be not so effective like in theory.[/b]
if the PT-91M armor is as strong as you say... then all the other 60ton monster MBTs that also uses the same german leopard tank gun like the M1, Challenger would be just as ineffective against this malaysian medium tank.
and if our spikes is hopeless against the PT-91M armor... in theory... maybe the PT-91M can take a dozen hit from hellfire and keep rolling on...
if so... forgive me... i think we need to call PT-91M (M for monster).
-
and if our spikes is hopeless against the PT-91M armor... in theory... maybe the PT-91M can take a dozen hit from hellfire and keep rolling on...
the poles have test fired the spikes on PT91. Dont know the results. -
Maybe the PT91M were indeed better protected than PT91 but that doesnt make it invincible. Not even ABRAMS can say that.
-
exactly... as gary already pointed out.. the marginal increase in the weight of the PT-91M vs PT-91... could not have pointed to a major increase in the armor strength of the PT-91M even if new materials were involved.Originally posted by tankfanatic:Maybe the PT91M were indeed better protected than PT91 but that doesnt make it invincible. Not even ABRAMS can say that.
especially since.. the PT-91M is still using much of the original core armor and design of the T-72M1.
and if anti-tank missiles are generally expected to hit a tank at such a steep angle... it would be silly for anti-tank missile makers like ST, to continually ignore such a fact and continue to promote a missile that would not be effective against even a medium tank. -
but there is one exception.
newer generation reactive armor such as ERAWA 2 are lighter in terms of weight and material, yet gives better protection from anti armor missile from its predessesor. SO the minimal increase of weight in a tank that implemented reactive armor doesnt mean its have slightly better armor. It probably have even better protection even if its lighter and thiner.
But reactive armor have no or little impacts on appds(is this right?) ammo. -
It doesn't matter if PT-91M really could withstand hits from anything or not.
Malaysian army doctrine do not actually involve MBTs to spearhead its attack
against enemy armor with a credible combined arms tactics. Rather she
follows the cause of Chechens and Hezbollah fighters who rely heavily on
infantry with lots of ATGMs and IEDs. IEDs are new to the Malaysian but efforts has been made in this area because it suits the nature of the army which is not too technologically demanding and it's simple. The performance of Hezbollah during Second Lebanese war has indeed convince the Malaysian army to employ more ATGMs like the Pakistani Anzas and the Metis-M. Still unclear if new large amount purchases has been made.
Indeed the Malaysian army ATGMs are growing and will problems later when
when the ATGMs shelf-life expires. Money wasted when investment must be
disposes of.
The PT-91M purchase are mainly for psychological effect against Sing forces.
It was made when the bulk of Sing armor comprises of AMX-13s and Tempests.
Malaysian army armor doctrine are still in its infancy and will stay that way
since she can't invest too much on armor and air defences to protect it.
In time of conflict,PT-91M will be mainly infantry support in FIBUA environment.
Being a huge road blocker that will end up being shot at but difficult to remove.
The threat from Malaysia are the really the MBTs but the anti-tank units. -
malaysia has been adding ATGM into its service way before the hizbollah isreali conflict...
eversince their departure from COIN, a simple check around themselves easily shows their country being surrounded by nations having hundreds of light and medium tanks.... such as singapore, thailand and indonesia.
while the ATGM is proving a good platform, the infantry that is operating the ATGM are still highly vulnerable... -
Unlike Sing, Thais do not really have a modern armor doctrine.Originally posted by tripwire:malaysia has been adding ATGM into its service way before the hizbollah isreali conflict...
eversince their departure from COIN, a simple check around themselves easily shows their country being surrounded by nations having hundreds of light and medium tanks.... such as singapore, thailand and indonesia.
while the ATGM is proving a good platform, the infantry that is operating the ATGM are still highly vulnerable...
Basically they still use MBTs as infantry support even though they have
good numbers of MBTs. Their combined arms tactics are deficient especially in
Forward Air Control and tactical mobilty. Currently they emphasized more
on COIN since their Southern Region are in turmoil.
The Indons have new MBTs in the forms of T-90s plus almost the same number
of AMX-13 as Sing have. But again their armor doctrine is unclear. The
Indon armors could pose as big threat in Sarawak and Sabah but their numbers could be negligible since the Indons must spread out their tanks elsewhere too.
Currently only Sing armor posed a menacing threat to the MAF with its numeral
,technological and doctrinal factor.
As for the vulnerability of the ATGM operator, in war this is inescapable.It could goes both way, ATGM crews and the MBTs.What is important is the 'give 'em the bloody nose' factor. -
but if malaysia decides to go the way of Iraq, singapore would be fighting a war which it cannot win within a short period of time.
which kind of means we lose.
how?? -
That would be MAF strategy from the start, preventing Sing to achieve quickOriginally posted by beavan:but if malaysia decides to go the way of Iraq, singapore would be fighting a war which it cannot win within a short period of time.
which kind of means we lose.
how??
and clean victory.
However to do that MAF must be able to mobilise quickly into areas that MAF
can stall the SAF and maintain its foothold without being flanked or annihilated and inflict big losses onto Sing.
Otherwise the war will be fought in the outskirt of KL with Sing holding the
bargaining chip.
The war could still drags on with Sing not being able to win but Malaysia
will suffer BIG TIME and probabbly loses its southern region during peace
negotiation. -
i seriously do not believe that countries like thailand and indonesia have no idea or proper concept on how to use their tanks despite the numbers they are holding... such an assumption is simply too dangerous.Originally posted by fvwerra:Unlike Sing, Thais do not really have a modern armor doctrine.
Basically they still use MBTs as infantry support even though they have
good numbers of MBTs. Their combined arms tactics are deficient especially in
Forward Air Control and tactical mobilty. Currently they emphasized more
on COIN since their Southern Region are in turmoil.
The Indons have new MBTs in the forms of T-90s plus almost the same number
of AMX-13 as Sing have. But again their armor doctrine is unclear. The
Indon armors could pose as big threat in Sarawak and Sabah but their numbers could be negligible since the Indons must spread out their tanks elsewhere too.
Currently only Sing armor posed a menacing threat to the MAF with its numeral
,technological and doctrinal factor.
As for the vulnerability of the ATGM operator, in war this is inescapable.It could goes both way, ATGM crews and the MBTs.What is important is the 'give 'em the bloody nose' factor.
secondly... armor do not fight alone... before those ATGM crew even gets a chance at our armor.. they need to survive the other arms of SAF first.. that's where their crew vulnerability is gonna hurt them most.
and assuming they survive.... the armor may not even come..