BUTT face to the pride of malaysia PT-91M?
-
Political reason:
They need to have an integrated force as part of EU. SO they grab some Leos and cross train with the Germans.
Dont know if it's polish brigade in germany, or german brigade in poland. One of those i think.
Not very sure. -
whatever the reason poland have for adopting the leopard 2 into its orbat... it's probably an unrelated issue... though some might surmise that if the PT-91M is really that good... its certainly give pause for thought over the compentencies of polish govt.
the bottom line is the claim of the superiority of the polish armor that seems to suggest a superiority over both western and russian armor technology seems rather unbelievable if not down right incredulous... given the historical record for polish MBT technology.
proving such a claim would be very hard without any real data... and the data that we have thus far from PT-91, does not seem impressive at all... not the least in fact... -
The funniest thing is that the Poles and the Germans aren't even on the best of terms now...Originally posted by CM06:Political reason:
They need to have an integrated force as part of EU. SO they grab some Leos and cross train with the Germans.
Dont know if it's polish brigade in germany, or german brigade in poland. One of those i think.
Not very sure.
-
they got the leo for free and its not a polish bde but a german unit attached to polish army with polish personel
-
Sigh ... can we put the record straight ... once and for all ... ???Originally posted by tankfanatic:they got the leo for free and its not a polish bde but a german unit attached to polish army with polish personel
The Leos in the Polish army are part of the Polish 10th Armoured Cavalry Brigade. This brigade while crewed and commanded by polish personnel, is seconded to the German 7th Panzer Division when deployed with NATO's Allied Rapid Reaction Corps. The 10 ACB forms the 3rd maneuver brigade for the 7 PD.
Overview of 7th Panzer Division
10th (PL) Armoured Cavalry Brigade Integrated Into The ARRC
While the Leos themselves were (probably) "free", the Poles nonetheless still paid a sum of about USD$30 million for the 128 Leos (to cover goodness knows what). Additional vehicles, ammunition and support for the whole orbat for the 10th Armoured Cavalry Brigade came up to about USD$55 million all told (incl. the Leos)
With regards to why they don't upgrade their PT-91 to 91M standard ... I guess they face the same problem most countries have with regards to defense spendings ... BUDGET.Originally posted by sgf: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.
Case in point, the 1st Warsaw Armoured Brigade has 2 tank battalions, 1st tank battalion is active and equipped with PT-91. 2nd tank battalion is in reserve and equipped still with T-72M1 ... awaiting funds to be modernised to PT-91.
As for them "buying" the Leos, see above, there were political considerations ... namely NATO integration.
Anyhoo ... just to wrap it up on a lighter note ...
Polish 10th Armoured Cavalry Brigade in Training -
thanks! thats help a lot
-
The upgrade from T-72 to T-91 was not very major, Within the limits inposed by the old hull of T-72, most of the work were done.Originally posted by sgf: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.
By the Time of the Comparison between T-91 and Leopard Tank in the Polish Army, T-91 was a fairly used Tank, and the "New" Leopard Tanks, were kept in good conditions (little used) by the Germans.
Ps ever wonder why German Engineering, i.e Cars (BMW, Merc), Planes, Gun (MP5 series), Ships (Meko class), Submarines, are among top of their respective classes. Germans does a good job in these areas.
The Poles are Not Upgrading their Twardy to T-91M standard. But to Leopard 2A4. This is to ensure that the Polish Force will be inter-operable with the Leopard Tanks they have, and what most NATO Force operates with. Leopard Tank is term as Euro Leopard for a Good Reason.
Polish Army Leopard Tank "acquising" was also part of the NATO requirment. Germany is transferring to equip a complete Polish armoured brigade, improving Poland's interoperability with other NATO forces
These Leopards were sold at "Transportation" Cost to the Polish Army. Under the Understanding, that in a Crisis situation. The Polish Bridge will operate as part of NATO Forces, rather than Polish Defense Force. -
The Poles are Not Upgrading their Twardy to T-91M standard, But to Leopard 2A4. This is to ensure that the Polish Force will be inter-operable with the Leopard Tanks they have, and what most NATO Force operates with. Leopard Tank is term as Euro Leopard for a Good Reason.
Being inter-operable aside, I don't think that was the main reason the poles got the Leo2. Of course I am assuming they had some common sense.
Polish Army Leopard Tank "acquising" was also part of the NATO requirment. Germany is transferring to equip a complete Polish armoured brigade, improving Poland's interoperability with other NATO forces
I mean if the PT-91 (or any of its variants) was really superior to any western tank on the market, I don't know about the Poles but it's one tank that I would like to hang onto instead of trading it out so that I can operate easily with some other armies.
Basically no matter how you spin it, the T-72 has several serious drawbacks that cannot be overcome without radically changing the tank itself (in which case you might as well get a totally new design).
The main one being that of inadequate internal space and very poor damage control. The basic design of the T-72, no matter how you tweak it renders it to be an MBT that you do not want to be in if its penetrated. And one can only improve it so much but this flaw will always be an issue.
Also, the elevation of the gun presents tatical issues (the tank is unable to run up against a protective berm and depress its gun to bear or keep its gun in the fight if it's climbing a hump) as opposed to western designs. I'm not sure how fast the new electric turret goes but I wonder if it's up to par with western systems. Russian tanks have been known for their low turret traverse rates. But that's just speculation on my part.
Having a good Fire Control System is no good if your gun can't be brought to bear on the target or turret turn fast enough to keep up with the FCS computer.
The armour protection is another issue as well. I don't think the makers of the PT-91M ever intended it to stand up against MBT fire from other tanks, but tailored it more of infantry level ATGMs or LAWs. There is only so much armour you can pack into a 40+ ton tank and to provide reliable protection in MBT engagements you need to tot packages like the DU package like that of the M1A1 HA series.
So ERA aside, unless the poles really came up with something as revolutionary in passive protection that allows a 40+ ton tank to pack as much protection as your typical 50-60 ton MBT, I suspect the term "new composite armour" to be more of a buzzword then anything else.
All that aside I'm not saying the PT-91M is a lously tank, just that I suspect some people might not know which end of the gun the APFSDS comes out from when they say that the Leo2A4 is "no threat" to it. That smacks of the "on paper" argument... which is the habit of quoting paper facts without using common sense and logic to consider how it all really stacks up.
At the end of the day, there's only so much you can do with a 40+ ton soviet tank design with limited internal space and damage control measures. -
Can someone enlighten me. Ceramic armour, is a hard and -brittle- material right?
-
Yeah...Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:All that aside I'm not saying the PT-91M is a lously tank, just that I suspect some people might not know which end of the gun the APFSDS comes out from when they say that the Leo2A4 is "no threat" to it. That smacks of the "on paper" argument... which is the habit of quoting paper facts without using common sense and logic to consider how it all really stacks up.
PT-91 has French FCS Savan-15 derived from FCS of Leclerc tank. It is FCS of latest generation. Leopard 2A4 has FCS of previous generation, from 80`. FCS of PT-91M has not only longer range and higher precision of detection and targeting of objects in any conditions but also "hunter-killer" capabilities with additional autotracking function. All electric turret has new, latest generation stabilisation system of gun and new, improved gun with 20% better accuracy. New 125 mm APFSDS rounds of Polish, Ukrainian, Pakistani,Chinese etc. production have penetration of 560-600-640 or even 760 mm RHA at 2.000m, which is enough to knock out Leopard 2A4.
So maybe not absolutely, but most probably, in possible duel between PT-91M and Leopard 2A4, Leopard should be simply first detected, identificated, targeted and destroyed by PT-91M. Especially in medium and long distance and bad weather conditions. From the other side, in close quarter day battle, chances should be equal, with Leopard advantage in armour and mobility.
There are different tanks with different capabilities, it is very hard to mesure precisely which tank is "better" in most situations and conditions. So it is wrong way of discussion, once again, I only asked you: dont underestimate PT-91M. -
Sorry man, you need to come up with the numbers to state your point, not simply put out "second generation, next generation" and stuff like that.Originally posted by Wosiu:Yeah...
PT-91 has French FCS Savan-15 derived from FCS of Leclerc tank. It is FCS of latest generation. Leopard 2A4 has FCS of previous generation, from 80`. FCS of PT-91M has not only longer range and higher precision of detection and targeting of objects in any conditions but also "hunter-killer" capabilities with additional autotracking function. All electric turret has new, latest generation stabilisation system of gun and new, improved gun with 20% better accuracy.
So maybe not absolutely, but most probably, in possible duel between PT-91M and Leopard 2A4, Leopard should be simply first detected, identificated, targeted and destroyed by PT-91M. Especially in medium and long distance and bad weather conditions. From the other side, in close quarter day battle, chances should be equal, with Leopard advantage in armour and mobility.
There are different tanks with different capabilities, it is very hard to mesure precisely which tank is "better" in most situations and conditions. So it is wrong way of discussion, once again, I only asked you: dont underestimate PT-91M.
If you say the range is higher, then put out the numbers to prove if... if not then it's just speculation I'm afraid.
Case in point, the "generation" of a particular system does not automatically mean it is superior to all that is supposedly "behind" it. It simply means that it's design lineage can be traced back to where it started from.
Of course, FCS aside, you seem to leave out the very important ability of the tank to keep up with it's FCS. That is a whole different thing entirely.
20 percent more precise? What do you mean? In terms of MOA or ability to lay the gun? Proper numbers please.New 125 mm APFSDS rounds of Polish, Ukrainian, Pakistani,Chinese etc. production have penetration of 560-600-640 or even 760 mm RHA at 2.000m, which is enough to knock out Leopard 2A4.
Not that I want to doubt you but this smells like snake oil. 760mm RHA is more akin to the "silver bullet" APFSDS that the yanks use (currently rated to 790-800+mm RHA)and I'm not sure if you got this number off a website trying to make a sales pitch or did they really put holes with it? In any case,
And on armour penetration of the "new" APFSDS rounds, I am dubious not because I want to defend the Leo2, but because even the numbers you state are dubious. The first generation of Leo2 tanks had an approximate KE protection of 650mm RHA, and the armour was further improved against KE attack in the A4 variant with tungsten and titanium, putting it somewhat in the league with the M1A1 HA series of tanks (which is prehaps the most KE protected tank in the world). KE protection for A5 and A6 with the spaced armour wedge is even higher.
Hence along the frontal arc, I express my doubts that anything less then the american "silver bullet" APFSDS will do the job on a Leo 2,
Unfortunately I do not have the specific RHA numbers to prove it, but we can draw some ideas on the level of protection from examples on tanks with similar protection in both Gulf Wars. When the Yanks attempted to destroy their own M1A1s that had bogged down in the mud, they realized to their surprise that their "silver bullet" APFSDS had difficulty penetrating their own turret armour even at point blank range.
I'm not trying to put down the PT-91M, but a lot of the stuff you mention smells a lot like snake oil... of course we can't know until you try to put holes in each other.
Also, in the terrain of SEA, do you seriously think MBTs have the chance to engage each other at long or even medium range? Taken a trip to our parts before? Most MBT battles will likely be concluded below 1 km, we just don't have the rolling plains of tank country here. -
Yeah...
]
PT-91 has French FCS Savan-15 derived from FCS of Leclerc tank. It is FCS of latest generation. Leopard 2A4 has FCS of previous generation, from 80`. FCS of PT-91M has not only longer range and higher precision of detection and targeting of objects in any conditions but also "hunter-killer" capabilities with additional autotracking function. All electric turret has new, latest generation stabilisation system of gun and new, improved gun with 20% better accuracy. New 125 mm APFSDS rounds of Polish, Ukrainian, Pakistani,Chinese etc. production have penetration of 560-600-640 or even 760 mm RHA at 2.000m, which is enough to knock out Leopard 2A4.
So maybe not absolutely, but most probably, in possible duel between PT-91M and Leopard 2A4, Leopard should be simply first detected, identificated, targeted and destroyed by PT-91M. Especially in medium and long distance and bad weather conditions. From the other side, in close quarter day battle, chances should be equal, with Leopard advantage in armour and mobility.
There are different tanks with different capabilities, it is very hard to mesure precisely which tank is "better" in most situations and conditions. So it is wrong way of discussion, once again, I only asked you: dont underestimate PT-91M.
well said. I suppose the SAF leo will be upgraded in terms of fire control and electronic? -
also did i mention earlier on the new sabot round? specially designed for PT91M? dont ask me what is the penetration power. I bet you my head no one will know it, at least for now.
-
i now have confirmation on the ceramic armor. Dont ask me the source.
The turret's shape is the same, howewer there are added ceramic materials inside. Bumar keeps it as a secret, what it was. Probably some CERAWA-2 stuff people say. For sure they added. Also the secret is how much it increased protection - Malaysian goverment requirement to keep the secret. The ceramic materials also were added to chassis/hul. And as far as ERAWA is concerned, some call it ERAWA-3 - they used aluminium instead of steel (lower weight of reactive armor).
-
And how does 20 percent more precise (assuming it's true and not snake oil) even matter given what MBTs were capable of doing even in 1991? They could put rounds into targets 3 feet tall 2 clicks away on the move?
The ability of the electronic FCS has long since outgrown the capabilities of the conventional gun system, even if your gun was 20 percent more precise (whatever that means), it would not actually factor into a 20 percent increase in capability, not any more then a 2000lb LGB with a 20 percent lower CEP then another one is actually more useful... the "inferior" system is more then enough to splatter anything even with it's larger CEP.
This logic was discovered by the soviets who went to extreme lengths to make their tanks smaller, reducing its form factor and drastically removing internal space only to realize that FCS systems had simply grown so capable that the smaller size did not represent a useful asset in helping their enemy miss. And of course they sacrificed armour protection and a lot of other things to get there.
So unless you intend to shoot coconuts with the PT-91 "more advanced" gun at 3 clicks, I'm not sure it's a real horn to toot. Even at 2 clicks a less precise weapon will do the job just as well.
It would only matter if you could somehow engage your enemy at ranges far beyond what is normally possible, then lets start to talk about how precise your gun is.
Of course, we are also told to make the leap of faith that 2A46MS gun is better then any smoothboreRheinmetall can manufacture... have they actually run a gunnery contest like they usually do in NATO or is this yet again snake oil?
Please refer to a thread in Strategypage on some dudes who tried to insist (rahter dubiously as well) that the Zulfiqar MBT and the Type 96 are better then any of the "big 5" MBTs (Leo, Abrams, Challanger, Merky and LecClerc), needless to say many were HIGHLY dubious.
As one tanker put it "if you have some dude who claims any new-fanged design is better then the big 5, it's time to take him with a large pinch of salt) -
can i say that given that the not so great tanks have state of the art FCS, electric traverser, new ammo, new gun, new thermal and radar evading paints and cover, new engine, new reactive armor.... makes it better than anything that were fielded in south east asia?
...and the Leo become the counter balance to that? -
No one will know, but it's possible to make some educated guesses:Originally posted by tankfanatic:also did i mention earlier on the new sabot round? specially designed for PT91M? dont ask me what is the penetration power. I bet you my head no one will know it, at least for now.
For example, APFSDS technology is reaching it's apex, that's why they have been suggesting alternatives to suceed it for some time now (ETC guns, larger calibers). There's a pratical limit to how much armour you can penetrate with a conventional APFSDS round from a gun of 120-125mm caliber.
One limit is in the propellant, as chemical propellants have a limit as to how much bang they can produce (which has a pratical limit before it destroys the gun). But a greater limit lies in the penetrator itself.
The design of the penetrator is prehaps the most important. The ratio of diameter to length, the type of material we make it out of and what have you not. Get the wrong length ratio and penetration will be inefficent. Get the material wrong and the penetrator might shatter and be ineffective.
The problem with current APFSDS technology is that we are already reaching the very limits of what we can do with it from a 120-125mm platform. To get good penetration you need a very slim and long penetrator (high diameter to length ratio), but such a penetrator is only possible with exotic materials, and hence each round will cost a lot more. And this can only carry you so far.
The yanks have some of the most effective APFSDS ammunition around, given they are the ones who are willing to spend a couple of grand with a single pull of the trigger and also the ones willing to use exotic materials like DU in their penetrators. And they are well aware of the limits of this technology. What we do know is that the frontal arc KE protection of their M1A1 HA (and onwards) series actually provide more protection then could be overcome by the pratical limits of APFSDS technology, that's why they worked on systems like LOSAT and the like to come up with new ways of defeating such KE packages, but nobody really followed up with it on their MBTs.
In fact their next generation tube-launched KE technology is based on rocket assisted projectiles (more akin to LOSAT then conventional ballistic technology), they have reached the limit of what is possible with APFSDS technology just as how the limit with HVAP was reached before APFSDS was introduced.
So back to the PT-91 APFSDS, this means that we can exclude the more fantastic numbers as pure fantasy and an attempt by the salesman to sell the round rather then actual reality, and the higher numbers as greatly suspect (unless the Malaysians are happy to buy their rounds at very expensive prices and deal with heavy metal toxicology issues), and focus on the more likely and lower estimates instead.
I would treat "even 760mm RHA" as highly suspect, and see the lower numbers as more likely. Prehaps 450-650mm RHA is more in the ballpark. -
Nah, I'll have to say it smells seriously like snake oil. Not that it is lously or CMI, but if you I had to choose what tank to go into battle in, I won't trust a PT-91M and would prefer to go downtown in a M1A2 SEP or Leo2 series of MBT.Originally posted by tankfanatic:can i say that given that the not so great tanks have state of the art FCS, electric traverser, new ammo, new gun, new thermal and radar evading paints and cover, new engine, new reactive armor.... makes it better than anything that were fielded in south east asia?
...and the Leo become the counter balance to that?
I say this not because the PT-91M is lously, but I suspect that some might have fallen to the guiles of glossyware, even the military is not immune to it
:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossyware
At least I have the assurance that even if my tank is penetrated, my chances of survival are far higher then in any traditional soviet tank design, no matter how many gimmicks it has. -
If the PT-91 has some kind of advantage like terrain, or the element of surprise etc... can anyone say they won't be able to knock out the Leopard2A4?
They may not be evenly matched, but a lot may still depend who on shoot first.
It's not as if you talking about the Leopard2A4 vs T-55.
Whatever its deficiencies, it is still a 125mm gun on the PT-91 firing modern ammo. -
Any tank, given the proper advantages will be able to knock out a more advanced MBT.Originally posted by moca:If the PT-91 has some kind of advantage like terrain, or the element of surprise etc... can anyone say they won't be able to knock out the Leopard2A4?
Some say they are not evenly matched, but still they are a match for each other.
So the comparison of this armour, that gun, this FCS etc reminds me of this set of playing cards I had as a kid. It that had all the different AFVs and their specs and you pick the best feature of that AFV to challenge your opponent.
Anyone ever played this game?
Shermans did manage to knock out Tigers when they had things running in their favour.
On the other hand, what I need to point out is that a lot of things that are only spoken of in the vague and "new" might not translate into an actual increase in effectiveness- or at least not as effective as it was hyped out to be. As with all things, some common sense is required. -
best case senario is of course, our AH and sph will neutralise any threats that's in the open.
I pray we get accurate and sustainable sensors out in the field.
Accurate timely infomation + ability to act on it precisely will win.
By the way, there's only so much a 125mm can penetrate, conversely, there's only so little a 125mm apfsds can not penetrate. If one cannot, the second will finish up. -
Originally posted by CM06:
If the "20% better" gun can put the second round on the same spot then bo weh gong lah, but I don't think that's very likely at all.
By the way, there's only so much a 125mm can penetrate, conversely, there's only so little a 125mm apfsds can not penetrate. [b]If one cannot, the second will finish up.[/b]
If you are proof from the shot in that arc, no matter how many times they hit you with it you are safe... unless of course they find a weak area. But follow up on the spot where the previous round impacted? I think not.
The limits of APFSDS technology are quite well understood, hence indeed one should take fantastic numbers on "Pakistani penetrators" coming from excited people with a big pinch of salt. I might trust the China stuff more (as much as they tend to have the hype effect), but I think it's a moot point...
We won't know if it can penetrate the Leo 2 until it is actually tested in combat, but I suspect our KE package might be up to the task (if it can be benchmarked to the M1A1 HA standard), given improved KE protection was the idea of the A4 variant, taken one step further in the A5 "wedge".
But of course this is speculation on my part, just as the guy who threw highly speculative values on the "multiple country manufactured" 125mm APFSDS, just that I need to point out that I do have some real world combat examples to draw from when the Yanks had difficulty in penetrating their own armour point blank with prehaps the most effective APFSDS in use anywhere ever.
If APFSDS technology wasn't reaching it's useful limit in 120-125mm caliber, why do you think people are messing around with ETC and 140mm platforms? As well as "rocket rods"?
Also it seems to me the upgraded armour package in the PT-91M was tailored to HEAT and not KE attack, so it's a different ball game entirely. To defend against KE you need the heavier packages with exotic metals in it typically found in the heavier MBT designs. There's only so much you can pack into a 40+ ton design.
In fact if the lighter ERA is to be believed, it seems the PT-91M has focused on HEAT attack, and not KE threats. Which makes sense given there is no real pratical way they can proof the tank from KE attack (only tanks in the higher weight range have a realistic chance of turning off KE attack with their packages) and focusing more of the threats they can deal with- which is infantry LAWs and ATGMs. -
It's lighter cause they use alu and ceramics.
Alu is lighter however, it's still weaker than RHA steel (density is the key)
Ceramics has their limits too. But they have their advantages against both ke and heat.
I read up a bit on wiki (i know not a good source but decent enough most of the time) regarding different armour types and the mbts around the world.
The PT-91 can kill( one hit kill if not in the front of another mbt). It just has low crew suvivability.
ERA has it's own limitations as usual. -
In fact if the lighter ERA is to be believed, it seems the PT-91M has focused on HEAT attack, and not KE threats. Which makes sense given there is no real pratical way they can proof the tank from KE attack (only tanks in the higher weight range have a realistic chance of turning off KE attack with their packages) and focusing more of the threats they can deal with- which is infantry LAWs and ATGMs
give this argument, plus the one you said about the edge of KE penetrator technologies...... plus the number of PT91M......some thing stumble upon my mind..... sort of a defence tactic or strategy, some very old man wrote in his book.if your enemy reach the highest point of their defence technology and you didnt..all you need to do is denied them those that can be targeted.
simply said asymetric warfare. They have means to kill any tank, you reduce the number of tank, increase the number of anti tank...
US spend billions researching on KE rounds and they couldnt peneterate their own... all the russian do is only upgrading their pasar malam RPG 7 into.. RPG-7VR ...wham! it penetrate the ABRAMS from each side.
Murphys law.[/quote] -
Depends on where you shoot mah.Originally posted by tankfanatic:simply said asymetric warfare. They have means to kill any tank, you reduce the number of tank, increase the number of anti tank...
US spend billions researching on KE rounds and they couldnt peneterate their own... all the russian do is only upgrading their pasar malam RPG 7 into.. RPG-7VR ...wham! it penetrate the ABRAMS from each side.
The front and sides of the Abrams turret is proof from just about most anti armour weapons, as is the front of the hull.
However the turret rear, hull sides and rear are far less protected, and they can be penetrated by an RPG if you place them there. Hence the "million dollar" RPG shot.