SAF Combat Bulldozers for FIBUA?
-
1st M60 cannot match the speed/performance of the LeoA4. The last few war already demostrate that.Originally posted by chino65:Thr CET compliments the CEV.
And please explain why the M-60 based CEV or AVLB will be phased out? Are they not working? Why adapt the "MCM accessories" to the Leo 2?
2nd Not point keeping 2 sets of MBT spares. Rather get more Leo2 chassis.
3rd As you may notice, CEV role has been replaced by MBT by simply attached the accessories, mainly the trackwidth mine plough, dozer blade to MBT chassis. A lot of the CEV role has already long been replace by the nimble CET, except the mine plough which the MBT can easily take on.
4th We already has a sizable leguan bridge and spares, no point keep the old scissor bridge layer. It will be easy to deploy somthing like PBC 2 with the spare chassis we bought. One issue with the scissor bridge is exposure of position due to deployment height.
5th Ready buyer for the old M60 based assets before it lose value, mainly the Thailand and Taiwan. -
I'm not aware of any ammunition for the L44 gun that can be used to demolish fortification.
IIRC, the M-60 CEV has a demolition gun. -
Just curious...can our Leo2s be adopted by the Combat Engineers for the use in a bridge-laying role?
-
Originally posted by bigballs11:
You are obviously from Engineers so just treat my points as questions:
2nd Not point keeping 2 sets of MBT spares. Rather get more Leo2 chassis.
We bought a mere 100 Leo 2, cannot mean we start throwing other things away.
We have at least 4 other armour platforms in operation that are much more vintage than the M60.
Besides, there may not be that many Leo 2 left for SAF to buy - selling like hot cakes.
Anyway, isn't it most armies' practice that the older equipment form up second grade units? For example, the M60 can continue to support Centurion or AMX-13 units. -
Thats true...they better secure more platforms for spares...Originally posted by chino65:We bought a mere 100 Leo 2, cannot mean we start throwing other things away.
We have at least 4 other armour platforms much more vintage than the M60 that are still operational.
Besides, there may not be that many Leo 2 left for SAF to buy - selling like hot cakes.
But then again, the numbers of Leo2A4 acquired being released may not be the actual amount. Mindef have its ways of hiding things...
-
I hope so, too. They're a steal!!!Originally posted by tankee1981:Thats true...they better secure more platforms for spares...
But then again, the numbers of Leo2A4 acquired being released may not be the actual amount. Mindef have its ways of hiding things... 
MAF must feel really stupid buying Twardy. But then they paid coconuts for them or something so can't complain...
...
Fact:
In 1973, Israel's population was less than 5 million citizens - I think...
Yet, they had an armoured force of at least 1,000 MBTs, not counting thousands of AFVs of other types. Reservists units activated, of course.
So, SAF should have enough manpower for more MBTs if need be. Of course, our low risk region really doesn't justify much more than the existing 500 + gun tanks combining AMX-13, AMX-10, Centurion & Leo 2. -
Can anyone put up a list of what types of armoured vehicles we have and their numbers?
Thanks -
It can be done and already has been done.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Just curious...can our Leo2s be adopted by the Combat Engineers for the use in a bridge-laying role?
LEGUAN 26M ARMOURED VEHICLE LAUNCHED BRIDGE (AVLB)
The 26m long MLC 70 LEGUAN bridge can be launched from a tank chassis (MBT), such as:
Leopard 1 for the Norwegian, Belgian and Greek Armies
Leopard 2 for the Finish Army
M1A1/A2 'Wolverine' Heavy Assault Bridge (HAB) for the US Army
M60/M47 for the Spanish Army
PT91/T72 for the Malaysian Army
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/engineering/man/
and surprisingly our dear neighbour has it for their twardy -
who knows, this initial purchase of Leo2A4 may just be the introduction of MBT to SG, after the region gets comfortable with these leos, you may see Leo2A6 coming in.Originally posted by tankee1981:Thats true...they better secure more platforms for spares...
But then again, the numbers of Leo2A4 acquired being released may not be the actual amount. Mindef have its ways of hiding things... -
Yes - you can use the chassis to convert it !!!Originally posted by SpecOps87:Just curious...can our Leo2s be adopted by the Combat Engineers for the use in a bridge-laying role?
But .... why would you want to waste an expansive leo2 ? when M60 chassic - CEV - what we using - it it cheap, good and works.
You you go for leo2 - just because hey it is cool to have all leo2 chassis ? is that not draw snake add legs !! -
I really hope you are right! But its more likely we upgrade our A4 to the A6 version. We need to be sensitive to our neighbours yar...can't have too much MBTs...at least not publicly acknowledged ones...Originally posted by khaiseng:who knows, this initial purchase of Leo2A4 may just be the introduction of MBT to SG, after the region gets comfortable with these leos, you may see Leo2A6 coming in.
-
Almond anyone? No, not almond nuts.Originally posted by Shotgun:Ya, if u like being in water often, getting your boots soaked, getting foot rot. -
Well, not CE
Those other armour platform are mostly MLC30 and below vehicle and we have more then enough leguan type MLC30 (actually it's more to MLC40) on Bionix, MLC30 on SM1 and the little bridge carry by each infrantry pioneer platoon for the job.
The built up of this heavy armour brigade/divison is meant for a very specific task unlike the usual armour formation we use to know. I forseen 100 leo2 is more than sufficient for the role not counting the 30 odd spares we keep. We can easily release 6-8 of them for to do a 1-1 replacement of the current AVLB asset we have and keep the turret as spare parts. FYI, at 1 mil a pop for an leo2, it's not really expansive compare to the price we pay for a CET.
In fact I might think we might even be getting some kind of enlarged wheel armoured vehicle for the job.
Any for those relics like centurion and M60, I say it's about time to sent them to the smelting pot and recycle for our newer and more environment friendly wheel based armoured vehicle.
BTW, the CEV demolition gun is so yesterday, we have newer, cheaper and more portable tools for the job. Need not waste an MBT for such trival work. In fact the word CEV is already consider an artifact in CE world. -
Update those unsure of our Leopard 2A4 numbers:
In addition to the 66 + 30 "spares" announced in 2006, Singapore will acquire another 36 more, following a trip to Germany by Def Min Teo earlier this year.
Found this online: "On the subject of the SAF adding 36 more Leopard 2A4 tanks to the 66 already purchased, he (Teo C. H.) said that the decision was made after the German-made main battle tanks were tested here. “We are very satisfied with their performance,” he said."
So we'll have 132, including "spares" at least officially "). -
Isn't this 32 the "spares"? Which still put the figure under 100.Originally posted by OldBird69:Update those unsure of our Leopard 2A4 numbers:
In addition to the 66 + 30 "spares" announced in 2006, Singapore will acquire another 36 more, following a trip to Germany by Def Min Teo earlier this year.
Found this online: "On the subject of the SAF adding 36 more Leopard 2A4 tanks to the 66 already purchased, he (Teo C. H.) said that the decision was made after the German-made main battle tanks were tested here. “We are very satisfied with their performance,” he said."
So we'll have 132, including "spares" at least officially "). -
Well Bigballs have a point that if the M60 are slower than the Leo2, then they pose a problem.Originally posted by storywolf:Yes - you can use the chassis to convert it !!!
But .... why would you want to waste an expansive leo2 ? when M60 chassic - CEV - what we using - it it cheap, good and works.
You you go for leo2 - just because hey it is cool to have all leo2 chassis ? is that not draw snake add legs !!
In action both CEV and AVLB have to lay bridges or clear obstacles and mines AHEAD of the main advance for the armour to cross. So if they are slow, it is definitely a problem.
Of course you can argue that the M60 can move to objective earlier but sometimes things aren't that ideal.
But I just think the slower M60 will just be relegated to the 2nd grade armour units instead of being junked. And SAF may eventually have some Leo 2 fitted with dozer blades and a AVLB version. -
Yeap yeap. I spent more time with the boats though.Originally posted by sgf:Almond anyone? No, not almond nuts. -
Well, taking IDF's example, junking working equipment is never acceptable.Originally posted by bigballs11:Any for those relics like centurion and M60, I say it's about time to sent them to the smelting pot and recycle for our newer and more environment friendly wheel based armoured vehicle.
BTW, the CEV demolition gun is so yesterday, we have newer, cheaper and more portable tools for the job. Need not waste an MBT for such trival work. In fact the word CEV is already consider an artifact in CE world.
IMO, the Centurion still has a lot of fight left. Its 105mm gun can still knock out everything across the border with the PT-91 being the only threat.
Its other asset is its very heavy armour, which increases crew survivability.
Again, the IDF have kept the Centurion in combat service though they have converted it to other uses.
Smelting pot? Probably not.
...
The demolition gun is no longer popular cos MBT's now spot 120mm guns and can do quite a bit of "demolishing" themselves.
But if the our CEV is supporting AMX13 units or other "tankless" units, then the 165mm gun is NOT something you write off. I am sure it can seriously demolish any part of a building it fires at.
...
Again, I want to point out that 100 or even 150 Leos may sound a lot in peacetime. But in combat many tanks can be knocked out or damaged in just one day of action.
With the infantry AT capabilites so improved and widespread these days, about 300 MBTs would be right for considering battle damage replacement. And I mean 300 MBTs - not counting AMX13.
Our number superiority in every weapon system must continue to be outrageous and remain at "uncomfortable" levels for our neighbours. -
It all boils down to the doctrine we use, I believe that the MBTs should not be used in an engagement role in a conflict, but rather as a buffer, while our good'ol AMX13s and Tempests go out and harass the enemy, suck them towards the MBTs and let them take them out.
Or, if the whole unit were to be used as terror on wheels, I would recommend having some ST 5 armoured 5 tonners, mount them with sandbags and 2 .50cals., one in front and one behind loaded with plenty of .50cal ammo travelling in front of the convoy, followed by the Leo2s with Primus, support vehicles, BXs behind and covered in the rear by AMX13s or Tempests. The plan of the game is to have the 5 tonners roar into any urban area with guns blazing as fireflies and draw panic fire while the Leo2s can take their time to blow those firing away. And the light AMX13 and Tempests bring up rear security.
Just my 2 cents -
You wanna drive the tonner?Originally posted by SpecOps87:It all boils down to the doctrine we use, I believe that the MBTs should not be used in an engagement role in a conflict, but rather as a buffer, while our good'ol AMX13s and Tempests go out and harass the enemy, suck them towards the MBTs and let them take them out.
Or, if the whole unit were to be used as terror on wheels, I would recommend having some ST 5 armoured 5 tonners, mount them with sandbags and 2 .50cals., one in front and one behind loaded with plenty of .50cal ammo travelling in front of the convoy, followed by the Leo2s with Primus, support vehicles, BXs behind and covered in the rear by AMX13s or Tempests. The plan of the game is to have the 5 tonners roar into any urban area with guns blazing as fireflies and draw panic fire while the Leo2s can take their time to blow those firing away. And the light AMX13 and Tempests bring up rear security.
Just my 2 cents
Our AMX-13s are hardly good. Old is right though. That tank cannot fire on the move, and the sights bounce like crap even on a slow advance. Those things are ambush tanks. Camouflage somewhere, shoot and scoot.
Finally, if you examine Singapore's position, you'll realise its hard for our doctrine to do any "sucking them in" even on the tactical level. If you have any friends in armor, ask them how often their commanders choose to conduct quick attacks, rather than defend. Every defend mission u give them, they'll warp it into some form of quick attack or another.
Of course, I usually joke that its cos everybody in armor wants their exercise to be completed early! -
Chino has a good point about numbers.
For the MBT force, it's not even coming close to the force ratio we often talk about, i.e 3:1. -
I thought of the 3:1 ratio, too.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Chino has a good point about numbers.
For the MBT force, it's not even coming close to the force ratio we often talk about, i.e 3:1.
But too many mitigating factors especially since MBT are more likely to meet enemy infantry with AT weapons than enemy MBT.
In Yom Kippur War 1973, a great portion of IDF tanks were hit by Arab infantry AT weapons like Sagger and RPG.
Similarly in both Lebanon wars. -
Well we are not IDF and our neighbours aren't the million strong arab either.
In the new doctrine, the need for heavy armour is mainly to thrust and punch a hole in a fortified enemy defence, and not really deploy to protect the soft skin vehicle. For that job 100 leo2 with some form of improve armour is more then enough. And I see no point keep 2 sets of ammo either, in this case 120 and 105. I think it about time we let go the SM1 and the centurion if it ever eixist and put our finite resources on the leo2 and the upcomming wheel combat vehicle.
Anyway, the army is not that cash rich so keeping so many relics doesn't help to transform into the desire armed force we wish to be. -
Well...at least the tonners are armoured. i have considered deployment something faster like a LSV, but i figured their use to draw fire would be more suicidal. I would actually use them to be deployed behind the MBTs to strike any AFVs, Tanks that show up with their Spikes and Milans. And like I said...the tonners are to draw fire.Originally posted by Shotgun:You wanna drive the tonner?
Our AMX-13s are hardly good. Old is right though. That tank cannot fire on the move, and the sights bounce like crap even on a slow advance. Those things are ambush tanks. Camouflage somewhere, shoot and scoot.
Finally, if you examine Singapore's position, you'll realise its hard for our doctrine to do any "sucking them in" even on the tactical level. If you have any friends in armor, ask them how often their commanders choose to conduct quick attacks, rather than defend. Every defend mission u give them, they'll warp it into some form of quick attack or another.
Of course, I usually joke that its cos everybody in armor wants their exercise to be completed early! -
Getting rid of relics I agree.Originally posted by bigballs11:Anyway, the army is not that cash rich so keeping so many relics doesn't help to transform into the desire armed force we wish to be.
I, however, think that the army is quite cash-rich compared to our neighbours combined.