BUTT face to the pride of malaysia PT-91M?
-
that would depend on their ability to maintain air and naval superiority over us....Originally posted by fvwerra:That would be MAF strategy from the start, preventing Sing to achieve quick
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.
which they are trying hard... no doubt.
-
Originally posted by Wosiu:
For the Spike missiles, they are designed to be a dual warhead and top attack ammunitions. Thus the problem of ERA plates standing in the way is solved, as the the top part of the tank has the weakest armour thickness and most third gen ATGM desires an attack from the top. Yes, I am not advocating Spike is invincible or whatever, but the Spike suits or terrain well as our terrain here has lots of vegetations, thus an attempt to guide a missile towards the enemy using wire guidance or IR is impossible and risky, so Spike offers a choice to overcome this issues.
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]
Regarding the Leo2, I believe SG will upgrade them for sure, as we usually buy 2nd hand weapons and upgrade them, thus using the original leo2A4 and comparing them with an upgraded PT-91M is definitely moot. -
Yar yar our weapons very lousy. Their tanks cannot be defeated by anything we have in our arsenal.
Our weapons capabilities are all open in the web/all over the world/because everyone else knows what we have and how well they do already.
We sark!
Yes yes fly white flag already. -
Is it light reactive armour or heavy? If it is the former, then the Twardy is as susceptible to tungsten rounds from a 120mm L44 as any Soviet tank without any ERA. The Kontakt-5 ERA are all heavy ERA, and I highly doubt the Poles have the technology. It will also be interesting to see how the Twardy compares with real Soviet T-72s as the Poles received semi monkey models for their military.Originally posted by tankfanatic: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.
As for that M'sian noob, he should know that our 2A4's configuration isn't confirmed and could well be upgraded close to 2A5's configuration.
And yes, the 2A4 also has a gun stabilisation system as do all modern Western tanks. -
Theoretically - at least - MAF doesn't need to mobilise in the sense that SAF need to. They're a full time armed force meaning all their units are operational 365 days a year.Originally posted by fvwerra:However to do that MAF must be able to mobilise quickly ....
They do have reservists but their reserves aren't quite as important as SAF's. -
As for that M'sian noob, he should know that our 2A4's configuration isn't confirmed and could well be upgraded close to 2A5's configuration.
aaaa that guy a polish -
Their armour doctrine may be different from others due to the nature of their terrain, their potential enemies etc. But to say that they DON'T have a modern armour doctrine, despite being the largest operator of tanks in ASEAN, that's quite arrogant.Originally posted by fvwerra:Unlike Sing, Thais do not really have a modern armor doctrine..... Their combined arms tactics are deficient especially in Forward Air Control and tactical mobilty.
How bad is their "Forward Air Control"?
You have this from a reliable source or this is your own deduction? When was the last time you operated with the Thais? Do you speak their language therefore you know they are unable to even call for air support etc?
So how else are tanks to be used? Please enlighten me. How, like Desert Storm is it?Originally posted by fvwerra:Basically they still use MBTs as infantry support even though they have good numbers of MBTs.
Last time I checked, tanks supporting infantry is still a very legitimate use of tanks especially in our SE Asian terrain of jungle, town and city. In fact, it is almost necessary for tanks and infantry to operate in tandem. Who supports whom?
Mutual.
Unclear to you, maybe.Originally posted by fvwerra:
Currently they emphasized more on COIN since their Southern Region are in turmoil.[/quote]
Ha!!!
You mean that their hundreds of MBTs, F-16 and the Thai Navy's aircraft carrier - the only one in Asia - are just for killing insurgents?
Sure, of course...
... going by your chain of thought, the Thais also probably don't know what to do with their carrier. Probably just for COIN or anti-pirates.Originally posted by fvwerra:
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.
But just because you don't know, doesn't mean the Indonesians also don't know.
[quote]Originally posted by fvwerra:
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.[/b]Just HOW spread out are the Indon tanks? One tank per hundred miles etc? And what makes you think the Indons will continue to spread their armour thinly if they are preparing for an invasion? -
Even worse. Apparently he doesn't even know that Poland is taking in Leopard 2A4s.Originally posted by tankfanatic:aaaa that guy a polish -
Thailand's aircraft carrier Chakri Naruebet No. 911. Commissioned in 1997.
-
The Indons have new MBTs in the forms of T-90s
aa indon have t90? -
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.Even worse. Apparently he doesn't even know that Poland is taking in Leopard 2A4s.
apparently he also know the poles have leo too. -
And? He even lists the wrong gun for the T-72BM that uses the 4A46M gun. The latest gun is 4A64M-5. There's a world of a difference from the basic 4A64 gun and the newer 4A64M series.Originally posted by tankfanatic:apparently he also know the poles have leo too.
The Leopard 2s were designed in mind of being upgradable, and the differences he mentions are easily rectified by merely upgrading the existing electronics. -
Easy guys
Of course PT-91M is not invincible tank, as any other tank (as some of you probally know, even few Merkavas was recently destroyed in Lebanon by Hezbollah with old Malytka AT missiles due to salvo attacks and attacks from side and rear). But it is quite good tank with good cost-effect ratio and should be not underestimated. Also you should not underestimate Polish technology which in many branches is equal to top western technology. Poland has tradition in tank production from 1930`. Maybe it will be interesting for you that in this year Bumar Labedy, producer of PT-91M, plan to reveal new light tank (20-30 ton class) with 120 mm gun in low profile, probably unmanned turret. -
Oh, really?Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:And? He even lists the wrong gun for the T-72BM that uses the 4A46M gun. The latest gun is 4A64M-5. There's a world of a difference from the basic 4A64 gun and the newer 4A64M series. Dont be ridiculous.
Nothing such like 4A64 exist. Designation of T-72 family of tanks gun is 2A46. -
The MAF doesn't field tanks with just SAF in mind.
They are also concerned - if not more concerned - about the north, as there is a long land border which makes driving lots of tanks across much easier. And they do have serious border issues with the Thais as the border demarkation was forced upon the 2 countries by the British.
Compared to Thailand's tanks, the MAF PT-91 is actually WAY more capable, I think. Though the Thais must outnumber them vastly.
Against SAF...
I don't know if we can land our Leopards or Tempests amphibiously but theoretically, at least... a heavy MBT must come through the bridges (Causeway).
And that can be a bottleneck if they (MAF) act fast enough. They can make it difficult for anything to cross over or go back. -
Well frankly,
even though we have a forward defense policy, the chances of us attacking our northern neighbour is quite low. Simply because we are so closely linked that hitting one will probably kill the other later anyway.
However, if the push comes to a shove, man, things are going to hurt real bad on both sides. Why? It's unlikely you have this "face off" of their best versus ours. More likely it their best will roll over our normal units while ours do the same to theirs until both sides gets worn out badly.
Well next thing is, deployment. Odds that armoured vehicles rolling across the causeway is very slim. Neither side will have the ability to do so without heavy casualties. Dont forget, the links are still narrow highways, block the first few, and you have a real kill zone formed infront and behind the barricade.
For our northern neighbour, their siting of their PT-91ms will determine if they can react to an attack from the north/south in X hours. Closer to one end means less reaction time for one and more on the other. Not to mention the swats of now very viable oil-palm biofuel rich land in the eastern part of the country.
Even for regular forces, you still need time for mobilisation.
I realised also that modern armoured vehicles, unless very lucky getting a glancing hit, any impact from antitank weapons is going to ring and shake like hell at least when hit. It will still suffer some damage no matter what and thus weakened in the next engagement. (Unless you have those wierd armour on abrams the cannot die kind)
Other stuff to say :
Spike performance while not mirroring that of hellfire II, the longer versions are capable of LR-AH hunterkiller ability just like hellfire IIs.
Spike got different types one. The one bought is 4km version. -
They are also concerned - if not more concerned - about the north, as there is a long land border which makes driving lots of tanks across much easier. And they do have serious border issues with the Thais as the border demarkation was forced upon the 2 countries by the British.
their real potential enemy are the Thais and the Philipines.
Thais were claiming Kedah, Kelantan and Perlis as their land and have few times in history try to invade the peninsular.
The Philipines claim sabah as part of the Sulu kingdom. They also aggresively have engage using special forces and millitary aircraft into malaysia. The most dangerous raid are by the marine special forces who destroyed 2 weapon depot in Labuan during the late 70s. The malaysian answered by sending their newly created special forces unit Malaysian Special Service Group (MSSG) now known as Gerup Gerak Khas, to manila and so some ugly stuff at the navy special forces base.
they (while ridiculuosly spat with singapore most of the time) always regard singapore as an allied rather than enemy. -
[quote]Originally posted by moca:
[b]
[b][b][b]Their armour doctrine may be different from others due to the nature of their terrain, their potential enemies etc. But to say that they DON'T have a modern armour doctrine, despite being the largest operator of tanks in ASEAN, that's quite arrogant.
How bad is their "Forward Air Control"?
You have this from a reliable source or this is your own deduction? When was the last time you operated with the Thais? Do you speak their language therefore you know they are unable to even call for air support etc? [/b][/b]
What i meant in deficiency in their Forward Air Control do goes to the extent that they could not call for air support. What i meant was do their army has their own aircraft to perform FAC rather than rely on the RTAF which we know do have the capability. The inventory of the Thai army air arms do not have fixed wing aircraft suitable of conducting FAC they must rely on RTAF to do so.This is my point. Is their Army/Air Force coordination good enough to ensure smooth and fluid operation? Can the Thai armor work as a combined force with the RTAF or act independently and call the RTAF only when it's in deep shit like many current armed forces. I do not see the Thais conduct many (or any) combined arms operations, unless it's done in secrecy. Only in training could we see our limitations and only in training can the army,navy and air force see if they can work as a combined arms force.
Basically they still use MBTs as infantry support even though they have good numbers of MBTs.[/u
So how else are tanks to be used? Please enlighten me. How, like Desert Storm is it?
Last time I checked, tanks supporting infantry is still a very legitimate use of tanks especially in our SE Asian terrain of jungle, town and city. In fact, it is almost necessary for tanks and infantry to operate in tandem. Who supports whom?
Mutual.
[u]Unless the MBTs is used ala Desert Storm, MBTs are mainly big monsters that are vulnerable,expensive when destroyed and tactically badly employed.
Sure infantry and armor work best together but technology in anti-tank has
come to the extent that infantry/armor cooperation has become less effective
especially in the SEA environment. MBTs still is the potent force but its no longer very difficult to destroy. Basically what infantry need from armor is firepower and protection. That is fine in conventional warfare but what if the
enemy goes assymetrical and this is prevalent in urban warfare. The enemy are all around you and hidden,suddenly our big monster friend Mr.MBT are a liability when ATGMs and RPGs starts flying around.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by fvwerra:
Currently they emphasized more on COIN since their Southern Region are in turmoil.
Ha!!!
You mean that their hundreds of MBTs, F-16 and the Thai Navy's aircraft carrier - the only one in Asia - are just for killing insurgents?
Sure, of course...
... going by your chain of thought, the Thais also probably don't know what to do with their carrier. Probably just for COIN or anti-pirates.
Do not get me wrong by implying that MBTs etc. are used for killing insurgents.
I meant that since the Thais are busy in the Southern Region they surely won't
drive their armor even further into Malaysia.
Unless they really want to use that as a reason to invade Malaysia.
Originally posted by fvwerra:
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unclear to you, maybe.
But just because you don't know, doesn't mean the Indonesians also don't know.
Unclear meaning what are the optimal objective of employing MBTs in an archipelago, against who? How to project it? Does Indon have enough air/sea
cover while transporting the MBTs in their LSTs. It appear that the Indon intent
to use armor more as psychological weapon against internal threat rather than external one. The sheer number of Indon population and country size is enough to deter any invasion from her neighbors. Surely Indon is currently relatively weak but wait war come and she mobilises.
Originally posted by fvwerra:
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.[/b]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just HOW spread out are the Indon tanks? One tank per hundred miles etc? And what makes you think the Indons will continue to spread their armour thinly if they are preparing for an invasion?[/color]
I do not have the answer for that. The Kodams Tanjungpura in Borneo will probably invites other Kodams from throughout Indon to join the fun of
bashing Sarawak and Sabah. But it is doubtful the majority of Indon armor will be there as no country will commit its asset strength in one location. Furthermore the Indon has other advantage that is numeral superiority. It's
better to use that as main asset.[/b] -
I think there must be something seriously wrong with the Poles if they can make the PT-91M superior to the Leo2A4 and yet choose to trade out their Twardies for it.
It makes as much sense as if we've decided to buy AMX-13 tanks to replace our Leo 2s.
Not that the PT-91M is lously, but I think when it comes to talking about equipment, let's avoid the "on paper" effect, which is the fallacy of assuming the only thing that matters is the numbers printed on paper and the speculations we can gather from that.
We don't even know what armour the PT-91M has, but I can make an educated guess that it's not going to be as well protected as a tank that outweights it by 10-20 tons, let alone better protected.
And of course the buzzword of "new" armour does not always equate to "massively more effective".
At the end of the day, you won't know until you face it in battle and try to put holes in it. I won't engage any MBT form the front with a LAW, PT-91M or not and even if you had a heavy ATGM, you should always try for a flank shot if you can. Technology is a great force multiplier, but at the end of the day it's how you play your cards and the tatics you use that matters as well. -
Originally posted by fvwerra:
If there is a point in there somewhere it is very well hidden.
What i meant in deficiency in their Forward Air Control do goes to the extent that they could not call for air support. What i meant was do their army has their own aircraft to perform FAC rather than rely on the RTAF which we know do have the capability. The inventory of the Thai army air arms do not have fixed wing aircraft suitable of conducting FAC they must rely on RTAF to do so.This is my point. Is their Army/Air Force coordination good enough to ensure smooth and fluid operation? Can the Thai armor work as a combined force with the RTAF or act independently and call the RTAF only when it's in deep shit like many current armed forces.Originally posted by fvwerra:
Oh, you mean they forgot to send you an invitation to view their military excercise is it?
I do not see the Thais conduct many (or any) combined arms operations, unless it's done in secrecy.Originally posted by fvwerra:
Gosh you're almost funny...
Unless the MBTs is used ala Desert Storm, MBTs are mainly big monsters that are vulnerable,expensive when destroyed and tactically badly employed... -
hello since when indon have T90?
pt91m. is a good tank but Abrams also a good tank, yet both can be killed. The thai may have litle or not that sofisticated Combine Arms brigade but to say they didnt train is utter baseless. -
Oh really? Perhaps a small typo is enough to get you happy.Originally posted by Wosiu:Oh, really? Dont be ridiculous.
Nothing such like 4A64 exist. Designation of T-72 family of tanks gun is 2A46.
The Tank gun for the latter T-72s was the 2A46M. The T-90 uses the 2A46M-3 or M-5.
Perhaps you would enlighten us on how the PT-91M compares with the T-90 in terms of armour including the Kontakt-5 ERA and others and why the Poles are switching to the Leopard 2A4 aside from interoperability when this great tank is so "great".Originally posted by Wosiu:Easy guys Of course PT-91M is not invincible tank, as any other tank (as some of you probally know, even few Merkavas was recently destroyed in Lebanon by Hezbollah with old Malytka AT missiles due to salvo attacks and attacks from side and rear). But it is quite good tank with good cost-effect ratio and should be not underestimated. Also you should not underestimate Polish technology which in many branches is equal to top western technology. Poland has tradition in tank production from 1930`. Maybe it will be interesting for you that in this year Bumar Labedy, producer of PT-91M, plan to reveal new light tank (20-30 ton class) with 120 mm gun in low profile, probably unmanned turret. -
The wiki article lists "ANGKASA No. 12, Edisi September 2006 (page 79)" as the source. If someone would be so kind as to grab the article from somewhere and translate it..Originally posted by tankfanatic:hello since when indon have T90?
pt91m. is a good tank but Abrams also a good tank, yet both can be killed. The thai may have litle or not that sofisticated Combine Arms brigade but to say they didnt train is utter baseless. -
1) Isn't it obvious! I doubt Thailand's armored warfare doctrine. She 's noOriginally posted by moca:Gosh you're almost funny...
slouch in armor but the doctrine is no good!
2) Training every year during COBRA GOLD, CARAT in "combined arms"
warfare which basically just being a mere host to some equally
inexperienced, just came
out of Parris Island US Marines, do barbeque dinner,see USN jets flying
around practising mock bombing, running out of LSTs,zodiac boats
whatever does not make one country an expert in combined arms doctrine.
3) Get real peoples...the MBTs is a dinosaur at least in some respect. She still
reign supreme over open terrain and total air defence cover but her days
in urban wars etc are numbered. -
If the PT-91M is such a super tank, why didn't the Poles upgrade their Twardies to PT-91M standard? Why buy Leo 2 A4s? Especially if the Leo 2 "sucks" and loses out to PT-91M.
