SAF truck OK for cargo but not safe for troops
-
From ST Forum today. Do you agree with him?
I dont..i think many of his points doesnt hold water
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_130242.html
_____________________________________________________________
I REFER to the news article on the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) providing more protection for the canvas covered five tonne trucks ('Increased protection for troops'; ST, May 21). The level of protection is supposedly for low-intensity conflicts. From the picture in the article, it appears armoured plates are attached to the sides of the truck.
The low-intensity conflicts the SAF is thinking of must be against an opposition armed with sticks and stones. That is the only way troops in that armoured truck can survive.
If the truck encounters an improvised explosive device (IED), the consequences will not be good. Generally, an IED blast is not focused and vents upwards.
In the case of the armoured truck, the armoured side walls and wooden plank floor will channel force upwards through where the troops are. The armoured plates now become a liability. If that is not lethal enough, the two spare tyres carried below the truck bed will come crashing through like a battering ram.
Now in the case of a pressure plate landmine, with the truck travelling forward, the explosive force will direct the front tyres, axle and other related automotive parts upwards. All this shrapnel will go into the front cabin with relative ease.
The firing ports are usually overrated and a grenade hazard. A system like a remotely operated machine gun will be safer, for example, a common remotely operated weapon station (Crows). Last but not least, it needs an additional protective sheet to trigger the fuses of rocket-propelled grenades.
If Singapore Technologies can design a armoured personnel carrier like the Bionix, it should not be a stretch to design a vehicle with more protection. After all, the principles of these vehicles are fairly simple: no load above the wheels, smooth and V-shaped hull for the bottom of the truck, and civilian automotive transmission.
The five-tonne trucks should carry cargo, not troops.
Alfred Loo Swee Kian -
I feel his points are very valid.
However, it depends on where the 5-Tonner is meant to be deployed in. I'm sure it will not be deployed for urban warfare where IEDs and EFPs(Explosive Formed Projectiles) are in large numbers.
The issue with a V-hull is that you will need something like an OshKosh Corporation armoured truck to be effective, something built to order, from the ground up.
-
Out of point but, i feel that instead of focusing on some new vehicle like the man truck, SAF should probably do something about the decades old landrovers which is so fked up to drive. And not to mention the amount of pollution that comes out of it.
-
I think its the perfect vehicle for SPF when there are riots. Other then that?Don't think so...lets see what COL. Benedict will reply.
-
Maybe these up-armoured 5 tonners are not really for operations like those in Iraq.
If you take note of the title, it just meant increased armour protection for troop-carrying tonners. Its just a safer troop carrying truck but its not exactly perfect for surviving ambushes such as travelling in possible mine territory.
-
i like the idea of CROWS. i scared to die one.
however, to provide enough protection from rifle rounds, RPG rounds, grenades, landmines, IEDs... wat abt VBIED then? the 5 tonner would become a really big tank.
thick composite armour, bullet proof glass... then wat abt the troops behind? use armour instead of canvas?
i believe the US invented a vehicle called the Stryker already.
personally, i think that we shouldnt even get the bloody leopard tanks (A4 variant). they are old models that other countries dun want. we should have gotten M1A2 Abrams fully modified with the optional modifications for our MBT.
and dun tell me its not feasible for our terrain, like some brainless officers in my camp says to save the face of the army... they are almost the same size.
no money say no money. haha...
anyway, minefields are marked out by most countries. so, just drive the MCV over. if not, wat is a 5 tonner doing in a place that is not secured by the blue force yet? why not use APCs if the situation is assessed to be so dangerous?
save money ah? -
Good Day, Just what Pop into my Inbox.
Just Sharing. Long article, only the initial portion is pasted inside.Armada International 2007 February
Sorry, just got back to office, pm some people to arrange some stuff, saw this and cross-posted, also in www.sgforums.com
Armouring trucks for combat: add-on armour is a necessity for combat service support vehicles to operate on the modern asymmetric battlefield
After the collapse of Saddam Hussein's army in 2003 Iraqi insurgents were quick to realise that the Achilles heel of US-led coalition forces is the ten of thousands of soft-skin combat service support vehicles necessary to bring essential items into Iraq for distribution to forward-deployed units. Improvised explosive devices, usually built using artillery shells or land mines, are the weapons-of-choice for insurgents, as they can be detonated independently or used to initiate an ambush by insurgents armed with automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades.
The United States, other NATO nations and their allies had developed add-on armour kits to protect soft-skin vehicles deployed on peace support operations in Former Yugoslavia during the 1990s, but these were acquired in comparatively small numbers. As casualties to troops and vehicles mounted in Iraq, the US Department of Defense launched a crash programme to provide armour protection kits and a self-defence capability for the soft-skin tactical wheeled vehicles in Iraq. Only 10% of the medium tactical wheeled vehicles and about 15% of the heavy variety in Iraq had armour protection fitted in December 2004.
Officials subsequently made a commitment that no vehicles would leave base areas without armour fitted. Armour solutions were improvised in theatre, as manufacturers increased production of existing armour kits and developed new designs for vehicles that previously had not been fitted with armour.
The Central Command operates four armour installation sites in Iraq in addition to facilities in Kuwait. Dispersing the sites reduces the expense and time of moving vehicles to a central location. By late 2006 only one of these was manned entirely by military teams, with civilian contractors operating at the other sites alongside military personnel. Armour installation is a four-step process that begins with stripping areas of the vehicle, then adding heat and air conditioning, reinforcing the frame and finally installing the armour. Besides trucks and Humvees, kits have also been developed for engineering equipment such as bulldozers, rollers and graders.
The fitting of add-on armour has significant cost implications beyond initial acquisition and installation. The weight of armour reduces a vehicle's load capacity, thus requiring either more vehicles in theatre or more trips to be made. With armour fitted the Humvees, the lightest member of the tactical wheeled vehicle fleet, is no longer able to carry the standard shelter, which must now be mounted on a trailer or carried by a larger vehicle. As a rule, militaries operate fleets that combine militarised versions of commercial trucks and purpose-built military designs; it is generally much more difficult to fit add-on armour to commercial designs than to military designs. The additional weight also exacerbates the increased operational tempo, which is significantly reducing the life expectancy of the American fleet. The combined costs of up-armouring, rebuilding (Reset), upgrading (Recap) and the acquisition of new vehicles has resulted in the Department of Defense increasing its expenditure on tactical wheeled vehicles from an average of about $ one billion annually from between 2000 and 2004 to about $3 billion in subsequent years.
The US Army is placing priority on five key areas in new designs: mobility, fuel efficiency, electronics (such as drive vision and movement tracking systems), cargo handling and crew survivability. The Long-Term Armor Strategy requires that every new vehicle be 'fitted for but not with' B-Kit armour, which can be easily added in the field to supplement the integrated armour protection (A-Kit) fitted, during the manufacture process, to areas that would be difficult to reach in the field. The A/B armour concept was pioneered by the latest variants of the AM General Humvees, the two-seat Ml151 Armament Carrier and the four-seat M1152 Troop/Cargo/Shelter Carrier, which the army began fielding in mid-2005. Light Tactical Vehicles (LTV) represent about 50% of the US Army's Wheeled Tactical Vehicle fleet with about 120,000 Humvees, 9000 Commercial Utility Cargo Vehicles and limited numbers of Small Unit Support Vehicles in service. International Military and Government, a subsidiary of International Truck and Engine, and Lockheed Martin are developing competing designs for the Future Tactical Truck System Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration, which is expected to lead to a Humvee replacement (light utility vehicles will be the subject of an article in a future issue of Armada International).
The army has more than 85,000 Medium Tactical Vehicles, about 40% of its total soft-skin tactical wheeled fleet, of which more than 20,000 are Family of Medium Tactical Vehicle (FMTV) variants with production scheduled to continue well into the next decade. Stewart & Stevenson Tactical Vehicle Systems, manufacturer of the FMTV, developed the Low Signature Armored Cab (Lsac) as a replacement unit for the vehicle's commercially-derived cab and has delivered more than 2100 units. The FMTV's standard cab can be replaced by an Lsac in eight hours. The company claims the Lsac provides 50% greater protection and weighs 40% less than available applique kits. Stewart & Stevenson is also producing the lighter Lasc-H for installation on FMTV chassis that will be used to carry the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System and its resupply vehicle. The company unveiled an armoured 4 x 4 FMTV utility variant in 2006. Based on the chassis of the M1078 Light Medium Tactical Vehicle, it features a new bonnet, behind which an Lsac is fitted. Positioning the cab further behind the front axle improves survivability should the vehicle strike a mine. The platform at the rear of the vehicle can carry either a three-tonne payload or the standard shelter, which can no longer be mounted on the Humvee.
.
.
. -
SAF had been riding in canvas covered trucks for decades, no one complain.
Now SAF decided to add some armour plates, everyone start bi.tching and start asking for tank-like specifications.
The armour plates can stop MG bullets in an ambush and shrapnel in an arty bombardment.
The armour plates are there to increase the chances of infantry men getting to the fight safely.
It is not for infantry men to sit inside like a bunker and fight.
The minute someone start shooting you should either drive away or debus cos the next thing to come will be RPG - which can penetrate even a M1 Abrams.
Once again, it is a TRUCK, NOT A TANK.
Get over it.
(Bile directed to author of that stupid post about axle flying through floorboards. The IEDs in Iraq can flip a M1 over, so he shouldn't be expecting a atupid truck to be landmine proof. Sure the 5-tonner can be better, but given a choice of this light armour 5-tonner and your baisc canvas 3-tonner in a war zone, it is easy to see what the choice would be.) -
The author is an idiot.
Chino65: Can i call you moca? Heh more used to that.
It's true we are all afraid to die but that guy has -little- understanding regarding such explosives and their usage.
1) Why are IEDs so destructive in Iraq? The Americans and their coalition has to keep peace and OCCUPY in Iraq now. They patrol routes everday, answer call to assaults by rogue militants and snipers all the time. Increasing exposure to civilian/urban environment allows the effective use of IEDs and road side mines.
2) I am very sure MINDEF will not permitted (neither would the government go to offering troops to kiss ass as an extend) our men to serve in such a senario.
3) IEDS > Armour. No question about that. It's even more delay than ATGMs cause you dont have to design something to send it to the tank, The tank will come to you.
4) IEDs actually more conventional mines are what you will face in a war scenario. You dont hear of Iraq forces IEDing the desert to stop Americans from coming through right?
5) We would not need a dedicated MANtruck because it's not a practical vehicle for our type of operations (Offensive/Transport no long term Occupation)
As stated the the more armour the less space for transport tonnage. Not to mention, SO WHAT if we have RPG resistant 10-tonners? RPG into the wheels the passenger cabin or a mine will still disable it. Once it's not moving, however RPGS do you think it can withstand?
Scrap the Landrovers for something with Hard Cover and AP 7.62mm protection? YES please
Be glad of the Armoured varient of the 5-ton? Yes.
At least you dont get a round going through the guy opposite you and then going through you as well.
Were the firings ports needed? Not in my opnion. Fireports are weakness in the armour. Have an RWS on a TRANSPORT truck? Hmmm i think it has become a wheeled APC. Does he know how much increase in maintainence a RWS will bring in? Who will control the RWS if there's only the driver in the vehicle cause there's not enough men around to even fill the role of a VC?
Yes it's a truck. -
Originally posted by Ristar:
Many countries do buy the ex German Leo2A4 tanks, such as Poland, Chile, Canada, Greece etc....Many of these countries are in NATO and is in the EU which means they use Euro. As most people know the Euro is now much stronger than the US$. That being said...these countries are not poor that why they choose the Leo2A4 but bought them more for its quality at a good price. And Singapore is smart enough to follow in their footsteps....
i like the idea of CROWS. i scared to die one.
however, to provide enough protection from rifle rounds, RPG rounds, grenades, landmines, IEDs... wat abt VBIED then? the 5 tonner would become a really big tank.
thick composite armour, bullet proof glass... then wat abt the troops behind? use armour instead of canvas?
i believe the US invented a vehicle called the Stryker already.
personally, i think that we shouldnt even get the bloody leopard tanks (A4 variant). they are old models that other countries dun want. we should have gotten M1A2 Abrams fully modified with the optional modifications for our MBT.
and dun tell me its not feasible for our terrain, like some brainless officers in my camp says to save the face of the army... they are almost the same size.
no money say no money. haha...
anyway, minefields are marked out by most countries. so, just drive the MCV over. if not, wat is a 5 tonner doing in a place that is not secured by the blue force yet? why not use APCs if the situation is assessed to be so dangerous?
save money ah? :lol; -
Moca-Chino - sounds like some Starbucks concoction.Originally posted by CM06:The author is an idiot.
Chino65: Can i call you moca? Heh more used to that.
Yes it's a truck.
Yes, it's just a truck... -
this is crap. is he saying that we should build something like a bionix that is the size of a 5 tonne truck for troop carrying?Originally posted by LRRP:From ST Forum today. Do you agree with him?
I dont..i think many of his points doesnt hold water
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_130242.html
_____________________________________________________________
I REFER to the news article on the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) providing more protection for the canvas covered five tonne trucks ('Increased protection for troops'; ST, May 21). The level of protection is supposedly for low-intensity conflicts. From the picture in the article, it appears armoured plates are attached to the sides of the truck.
The low-intensity conflicts the SAF is thinking of must be against an opposition armed with sticks and stones. That is the only way troops in that armoured truck can survive.
If the truck encounters an improvised explosive device (IED), the consequences will not be good. Generally, an IED blast is not focused and vents upwards.
In the case of the armoured truck, the armoured side walls and wooden plank floor will channel force upwards through where the troops are. The armoured plates now become a liability. If that is not lethal enough, the two spare tyres carried below the truck bed will come crashing through like a battering ram.
Now in the case of a pressure plate landmine, with the truck travelling forward, the explosive force will direct the front tyres, axle and other related automotive parts upwards. All this shrapnel will go into the front cabin with relative ease.
The firing ports are usually overrated and a grenade hazard. A system like a remotely operated machine gun will be safer, for example, a common remotely operated weapon station (Crows). Last but not least, it needs an additional protective sheet to trigger the fuses of rocket-propelled grenades.
If Singapore Technologies can design a armoured personnel carrier like the Bionix, it should not be a stretch to design a vehicle with more protection. After all, the principles of these vehicles are fairly simple: no load above the wheels, smooth and V-shaped hull for the bottom of the truck, and civilian automotive transmission.
The five-tonne trucks should carry cargo, not troops.
Alfred Loo Swee Kian -
To SAF, soldiers r cargo... ><
-
Before I left NS... I tot that they intend to switch from landrover to the new MCV????Originally posted by Don©:Out of point but, i feel that instead of focusing on some new vehicle like the man truck, SAF should probably do something about the decades old landrovers which is so fked up to drive. And not to mention the amount of pollution that comes out of it.
Dunno leh... still see landrovers on the road nowadays. -
so expensive just to change trucks into tank.... im glad if the trucks can withstand light arms fire... can reduce rpg effectiveness is a big thanks also... but war is war... if in ambush return fire..kill the attacker to reduce the number of casualties on your side...
-
for a good price. cheap. save money = dun get the best.Originally posted by tankee1981:Many countries do buy the ex German Leo2A4 tanks, such as Poland, Chile, Canada, Greece etc....Many of these countries are in NATO and is in the EU which means they use Euro. As most people know the Euro is now much stronger than the US$. That being said...these countries are not poor that why they choose the Leo2A4 but bought them more for its quality at a good price. And Singapore is smart enough to follow in their footsteps....
2A6 is available. why not get the latest, most improved version? save money.
we buying 2nd hand goods leh, money stronger/weaker is no issue. its cheap. 3G army. hah oh yeah, talking abt 3G... US Army equipped their soldiers with Body Armour that can stop 7.62mm rounds, SAF equipped their soldiers with air that can stop nothing. a new body armour is in the works and has undergone extensive trials. Dragon Skin.
u think SAF is gonna get all these?
the leopard 2A4 is armed similar to the M1A2, however, the M1A2 has an additional 12.7mm machine gun.
Leopard 2A4
Weapon: L44 on the 2A4 can fire APFSDS-T rounds, 42 rounds.
Standard Equipment: IR, passive NV devices, NBC
Gun Sensors: dual magnification, stabilised EMES-15 with laser range finder, thermal image unit and fire control computer.
M1A2 SEP Abrams (electronics upgraded)
Weapon: M256 on the M1A2 can fire APFSDS-T rounds, 40 rounds.
M1028 120mm Anti Personnel Canister Cartridge (maybe the 2A4 can, but r we going to get the rounds?)
MRM-KE (Mid Range Munition Kinetic Energy, still under development) that has a range of 12km and can hit a moving T-72 at 8.600km at the moment.
Gun Sensors: fire control computer, thermal, daylight, gunner's primary sight, laser range finder, crosswind sensor, pendulum static cant sensor, data on ammunition type, ammunition temperature, muzzle reference sensor
Additional Features: can be equipped with mine plow and mine roller attachments if required
Modifications: TUSK (Tank Urban Survival Kit) on the M1A2 is field installable
Reactive Armour on sides and Slat Armour on rear to protect against RPGs and shaped charge warheads.
gun shield and thermal sight can be added to the loader's top-mounted 7.62mm MG.
transparent MG shield
Kongsberg Gruppen Remote Weapon Turret (for 12.7mm) so that commander does not have to expose himself.
exterior telephone for supporting infantry to comms tank commander
War History:
capable of killing in excess of 4000m
survived direct APFSDS hit from friendly fire cases
no one other than the US military killed the M1 before
due to friendly fire coz they are yankees, disabled by enemy then destroyed to prevent sensitive equipment taken by enemy, and accidents (eg. stuck in mud) in disabled incidents. they are recoverable, but then have to be left behind due to the situation, so they destroyed them. -
M1 Hit by RPG class ammo
Ignore the Larger Holes, was told that they were made by American munition. It is a smaller hole at the left hand side of the turret, that bought down this beast.
[/img]
Ps don't be taken in by the American Cool Aid. M1 is not as magical as what the American want the World to think it is. -
will a 2A4 survive these hits?
turret, track and rear has always been vulnerable places.
we are comparing these 2 tanks, not debating whether the M1 can be killed/disabled.
Cool Aid indeed. try to have a constructive sharing session instead of trying to ridicule me. too difficult for u? -
I am Sorry if you felt Ridiculed. It was not my intention. Please accept my apologies.Originally posted by Ristar:turret and rear has always been vulnerable places. however, will a 2A4 survive these hits?
we are comparing these 2 tanks, not debating whether the M1 can be killed/disabled.
Cool Aid indeed. try to have a constructive sharing session instead of trying to ridicule me. too difficult for u?
Not many people know that the M1 has weak areas, even on the frontal arc. The American are naturally sensitive of such information on the web. Been noticing, and still confirming, that the American are mounting ERA on their Frontal Arc, as part of their new TUSK upgrade.
Picture of Frontal Armour penetration, but by what? From the blur image, cannot tell definitely if it was a APFSD (which most likely be an American shot) or a ATGM.
Please accept my apologies. -
damn, now i feel like an idiot for being overly sensitive.Originally posted by snowfox_my:I am Sorry if you felt Ridiculed. It was not my intention. Please accept my apologies.
Not many people know that the M1 has weak areas, even on the frontal arc. The American are naturally sensitive of such information on the web. Been noticing, and still confirming, that the American are mounting ERA on their Frontal Arc, as part of their new TUSK upgrade.
Picture of Frontal Armour penetration, but by what? From the blur image, cannot tell definitely if it was a APFSD (which most likely be an American shot) or a ATGM.
Please accept my apologies. sorry abt it too.
myself, i believe in computers/sensors, weapon range and accuracy. a lot.
if ST somehow upgrades the SAF's 2A4 with the similar electronics (the sensors that M1A2 SEP has but not the 2A4), and TUSK that the M1A2 SEP has, with no reduction in ability/capability, and modify it so it can survive, with no crew losses, APFSDS-T rounds... i'd say fine. shoot a round and hit a tank in excess of 4000m, great.
even better, make the turret a lot less vulnerable, upgrade the electronics to include the SAF's Battlefield Management System yada yada yada...
i think that we should only have the best equipment that is available in the world, given we are small, and any potential enemy (bigger than SG) can outnumber and outgun us. we have to make up for the quantity by quality, so that our servicemen will survive contacts after contacts with the enemy. -
There was an earlier post when the vehicle was first introduced in the press.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=255690&page=0
The article did say this truck is expected to take our troops into the war zone, where in my opinion it is likely to be a death-trap. -
Nice pics there Snowfox, very nice stuff.
Ristar, would like you to understand that there is no such thing as RPG proof tank and also the idea of cost vs value for money over time.
M1 isnt the best tank in the world. Even with whatever pretty toys included a L2 vs M1 face off can never be compared or factualised. It will always be too subjective.
Why we bring in the Leo2, our neighbour north has already purchased theirs - PT-91. Its not our policy to bring in all the new offensive toys to introduce in the region. The AH-64 was an exception.
Purchase of TUSK upgraded M1A2s will bring our MBT to be even stronger than what's offered to Australia, a close US ally where they get upgraded M1A1s only. It's not very applicable in this case.
Why the Leo2 - If you noticed, we purchased -war stocks- it's the equivalent of a combat fit orded person in armour terms. It might be mothballed,canvas covered, but it still gets it regular maintainence.
Counting backwards to the time MINDEF announced the purchase of the Leo2, its been barely SIX months. There's no way you can buy a brand new - newly built tank in less than 1 year on the other hand. Please note the PT-91M has only recently announced to have entered Serial Production goodness knows when the last tank they purchase will be delivered. (They have to number each individual tank with a serial number like all our electronic products.)
The Leo2 A4 Vs A6 are differences in electronic sights, Tank barrel (L44 vs L55;longer, more accurate) and the add - on armour to the front turret and perhaps some new armour to the sides and rear.
Naturally since the German Army is downsizing, they are literally selling the tanks at a bargain. You will never buy a current MBT like the Leo2 for a little over a million(?) bucks each.
Regarding armour add-ons, like the slat/era, i'm sure we have the ability to handle those on our own.
We do not need such a long new L55 barrel. Our terrain and our likely enemy do not have tanks that out-range us right now. You know how f-king long is the L55? We will have to lengthen most of our sheds to accomodate those.
Regarding ammo. Most ammunition can be handled as long as the computer has the data to adjust to the flight performance of that specific round.
================
Anyway i went way too off topic. Regarding the Armour 5-ton half the stuff the newspaper reports regarding our Mindef are factually incorrect.
On the other hand, if you are transporting troops in a 5-ton, you are definitely moving in so called "safe zones". You are also way better off in something that is 7.62mm resistant than mere canvas.
No, in an ambush, you do not "stay around and kill a few more of them" You will floor the pedal and zoom off. Radio for reinforcement and maybe later you will be deployed to sweep the area of enemy stay-back troops.
If you are in hostile territory, sorry guys, you have to do tactical movement. Get off and walk! No sitting in a big "shoot me" truck. -
Front of the turret, you mean...?Originally posted by snowfox_my:Picture of Frontal Armour penetration, but by what? From the blur image, cannot tell definitely if it was a APFSD (which most likely be an American shot) or a ATGM.
Don't know a lot about tanks but the Front of the hull is supposed to be the strongest, not sure about front of the turret, though... -
A lobang on the front does not mean penetration. It could simply mean damage. Given the tank itself with the damage looked otherwise ok with no signs of fire damage and the like, not to mention not in the battlefield when the photograph was taken, we can conclude that whatever hit it, it survived.
Back to the tonners.
Remember there was this dude called Glock who though our Armoured 5-Tonners were more cost effective then the mine-resistant Terrex.
Armoured 5 tonners have their place, and any armour is better then no armour at all. The experience of the Yanks in Iraq has led to them up-armouring their soft-skins with official armour packs or even “hillbilly” (improvised) armour.
But letÂ’s not delude ourselves that the armoured 5-tonners are supposed to stand up to stuff like RPGs and the like, but shrapnel and fragmentation that would turn a normal tonner into a frag houseÂ… maybe.
So unless this Alfred is suggesting that we somehow have the means to move ALL our troops in proper AFVs then his point is pretty moot. Unless all our grunts have to hump it on foot they will have to go to point A to point B in some form of transport, and the truck is still the cheapest means of doing so, despite the lack of protection compared to an APC or IFV. And if you can increase the protection level of the truck, why not?
Somehow I have no idea how this basic logistical logic can escape this Alfred dude, having nitpicked over mines and explosions and stuff.
And on MBTs, letÂ’s not start on another silly this MBT is better then that MBT threads, especially if the MBTs are so similar.
And please note that the Abrams is not unkillable, but if you read “Thunder Runs”, as well as listen to the testimonial of the grunts who have taken deadly fire in that thing, you would know that like any well designed MBT it is something you really want to be in.
Typically in the current Iraq war, the M1s taken out of action were either gotten by “suck thumb” IEDs that are way beyond the capacity of any vehicle to protect from or from shots to their vulnerable areas (rear, motive systems). And if the Yanks can’t retrieve a disabled tank immediately, they will burn it up and plug a few holes in it to make sure it’s not going anywhere soon (which often accounts for the multiple holes in the abandoned tanks that were burned down). But all in all these behemoths have performed rather well in their role and given the amount of fire they have taken.
The myth of Abrams invincibility is either spread by ignorant American propagandists or insurgents who make a great deal of knocking out one (betraying a mentality that they indeed think the tank is neigh invulnerable). But I think the grunts who go into battle with the steel beast knows the limits of their ride and never expose themselves unnecessarily to risk. They trust the tank to take fire and not quit to get them back home, and if it does quit still keep the crew in one piece, and combat experience has proven that this is usually the case.
On the other hand, weÂ’d probably expect a similar performance from our Leo 2. -
Front arc of the turret is also one of the heaviest armored as well. Perhaps even better due to spaced armor?
From the image shown, I really don't know if the front arc of the turret was penetrated totally. I mean, even if its an APFSDS round, from the looks of it, it was stopped deep.
BACK to Topic.
I agree, don't expect the up-armored 5 tonner to become a tank. At least now the troops inside can be protected by small arms fire, and a simple soft skin vehicle like the 5 tonne truck now requires heavier weapons to damage it efficiently.
Seeing the kinda IEDs they have in Iraq, even the Bionix will fall prey to them. 5 Tonne truck, no matter how up armored won't survive. Does that mean we have to design a new BX or some armored vehicle that will survive? Hell no! You'd probably be designing some kinda main battle tank by then. With no troop ferrying capacity!
From the author's view, does he then expect SAF to up armor even the infantry man to survive a direct explosion?
The Up armored 5 tonners are not meant for ferrying troops to the front line. For those, we have the BX and the Broncos.