SAF ‘smaller’ tank fleet
-
The 2012 UN arms register reported 59 Leopard 2A4s transferred to Singapore in year 2011 which increases SAF’s Leopard MBT fleet to 154 units. This would enable SAF to form at least an armoured brigade of 108 MBTs with 46 in reserve/spares. Mindef stated that the L2s will replace the ~350 AMX-13s.
There have been a lot of discussions over many years on the need for a light tank as a direct AMX-13 replacement. To date, no such replacement has been noted. Indeed, flirtation with the use of larger caliber gun vehicles e.g. AMX-10 PAC90 appears also to be abandoned. As such, the SAF tank fleet would seem to be declining in number. Instead, the NATO practice of combining MBTs with medium gun caliber IFVs appears to be the path of the SAF. The introduction of the Bionix with the bushmaster 25 and 30mm Mk 44 guns appear to be the backbone of armoured infantry units whilst the lighter armed Terrex is used by the more mobile guard/light infantry units.
Many armoured troopers have commented on various forums on the impact of the loss of the 75mm gun in the direct fire/infantry support role. However, it appears the SAF has accepted the 40/50 combo + 30mm as a compromise to embrace the MBT doctrine. STK’s 40mm AGL is combat proving itself as an effective anti-infantry weapon with the UK sourcing its 40mm GL shells from ST (warthog use in Afghanistan). The 30mm Mk-44 gun also uses air burst munitions such as ATK’s Mk310 ABM rounds which increases capability against defenses in defilade.
The Leopard 2 MBT provides more fire power with its 120mm L44 gun than AMX-13's 75mm SA50 gun in the counter-MBT role. MBTs are entering service in ASEAN, India and China in ever-growing numbers. The SAF (with the L-44 gun) avails itself to a very broad range of NATO munitions including the highly-effective DM63 shell, touted to penetrate any MBT in service in the region today even without the higher muzzle velocity of a L55 gun. If that is insufficient, there is the longer-ranged LAHAT ATGM which can be fired from the L44 gun. In the anti-massed infantry role, the US army also uses the M1028 canister cartridge for the M1 which would be more effective (carrying much more tungsten balls) than the 75mm version. In terms of protection, the Leopard 2 far surpasses the AMX-13, the L44 guns stands off at greater range (4+km with higher first hit %) and the armour already far thicker than the AMX-13. With the supposed IBD-sourced add-on armour, the L2SG would provide even greater protection to armour crews especially in the increasingly ATGM-equipped combat environment. The AMX-13 can no longer provide adequate protection. Even with the up-engine conversion that provide increased power, the AMX-13 does not carry enough armour to protect its crews even from medium gun calibre rounds.
So why not have MBTs plus light tanks? One reason may be logistics. The Leopard 2s are fuel guzzlers (1200l fuel tanks). Adding 154 L2s would require a 110% expansion of the logistical fuel train. Eliminating 350 AMX-13 fleet (480l fuel tanks each) would balance the existing fuel needs of 154 L2s. From an ammo resupply perspective, 350 AMX-13s would have required 11,200 shells to be replenished whereas 154 L2s would only require ~6,500 (though 2-3 times heavier than the 75mm shells and thus providing a bigger bang). Most importantly, with a declining birth rate, 154 L2s cut tank crews by 41+% compared to 350 AMX-13s.
The use of MBTs in jungle terrain has been criticized and was the rationale for the prevalence of light tanks and armoured cars in the first place. However, recent combat experience have done much to dispel the myth that MBTs can’t operate in the region. The Japanese successfully used tanks to spearhead their Malayan campaign in 1942. The US Army successfully used the heavy M-60s in Vietnam. Leopards MBTs demonstrated its utility in Afghanistan resulting in many armies e.g. Canada and Indonesia looking to acquire 2nd hand L2s. More importantly is the increasing urbanization of the potential battlefield expands the territory that the MBTs can be employed in.
In future, we might yet see a change in doctrine to re-introduce light tanks with heavy calibre guns in the SAF e.g. to support the motorized infantry battalions. Until then, the SAF lives with a 'smaller' tank fleet.
-
SAF only wants Leopard MBTs for glamour and kiasuness.
There is hardly any terrain for tanks like that to run around in an island.
A real waste of money.
SAF should instead get this tank, call the S-tank, use by the swedish army to counter russian threat, it is smaller, able to hide itself from potential targets.
-
Still talking about having tanks fight in Singapore terrain? hehehe.... very out dated.
-
I don't mind them having a much smaller fleet. 20 good tanks better than 120 that will break down at the front gate.
-
ARMOUR
Motto
The Armour motto "Swift and Decisive" was coined by LTC (Ret) DR Jumbu. It represents the true spirit of Armour war fighting with its characteristics - Firepower, Mobility, Armour Protection, Flexibility and Shock Effect, to achieve a swift and decisive victory.Insignia
1. Crossed Bayonets
It symbolises the incorporation of Armoured Infantry.The punching force is not outdated.2. Mailed Fist
It represents a crashing force and the hard protection of Armour. -
Originally posted by speakoutfor:
SAF only wants Leopard MBTs for glamour and kiasuness.
There is hardly any terrain for tanks like that to run around in an island.
A real waste of money.
SAF should instead get this tank, call the S-tank, use by the swedish army to counter russian threat, it is smaller, able to hide itself from potential targets.
The S tank has been replaced by the Leopard 2 in Swedish service.
It's a defensive design because it cannot fire on the move. Singapore needs something to go out and secure territory in active defence.
You should not shoot your mouth off like that.
-
they should design n build cheaper small tank robots with 20kg explosives to run under da tanks and blow em all up to kingdom cum!:)
this is how i deal with any mbt tank in the batt;e3field.remeber to patent this idea if u werk in this field.heheh
-
Originally posted by speakoutfor:
SAF only wants Leopard MBTs for glamour and kiasuness.
There is hardly any terrain for tanks like that to run around in an island.
A real waste of money.
SAF should instead get this tank, call the S-tank, use by the swedish army to counter russian threat, it is smaller, able to hide itself from potential targets.
Surely you jest. If you know anything about the S-tank, then you know its greatest weakness: the lack of a traversable turret.
Seriously, look at the tank. The main gun cannot be turned without turning the whole tank on its tracks.
And as was previously mentioned, it has since been superseded by the Leopard 2 in the Swedish army. In other words, the Swedes themselves no longer agree with you.
-
The S-tank was specifically designed without a turret. The concept of ops was simple, moving pillboxes akin to how the german STUGs operated in ww2. In the 60s/70s, first hit probability firing on the move was very low. Hence most tanks stopped before firing. The lack of a turret = lower and greater sloped profile which is useful in a static defence. As the L2 generation increased first hit probability from firing on the move, it made sense to upgrade. Not very capable to fire on the move with a single direction gun. The L2 spotted a higher calibre gun (120mm vs 105mm) and had greater armour protection. 40 ton tank vs 60 ton tank = ~20 added tons of armour. The 105mm can't provide the penetration today. Neither can the S-103's armour provide the protection. Cheap T-72s is more effective in both aspects but the cost of 2nd hand Leopard 2s makes it a logical choice.
-
Afghanistan has any jungles? It's predominantly mountain/desert terrain.
-
To all the detractors of the S-tank,
Reason why I say S-tank is good for singapore is because its small and manoevreble. I watched the S-tank move and fire its cannons, the tank is design to "rise up" and tracts can move opposite directions to position tank fire, without needing to move the tank.
Its low design signature, allows it to hide within buildings. It can get out of tight corners and difficult terrain easily, just watch the second you-tube video below.
Sweden replaced the S-tank with Leopard tanks because of the collapse of Soviet Union, they no longer have the threat of invasion from the east. S-tank was designed to hide in the forest folliage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fARGfVA7Mm8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4eL1G8yyoo&feature=related
105mm cannot penetrate? Use salbot rounds. Besides, the only other neighbour that capable of invading Singapore with tanks is Malaysia, and they are using the polish made T-72 tanks which have a weakness in the hull design due to the ammo situated there. During the gulf war, it was proven T-72s have major weakness design flaw.
T-72s does not have composite or chobham armour. They can be easily taken out by russian made rpgs. The only protection they got from shape charge is the expensive and cumbersome reactive armor.
-
Originally posted by speakoutfor:
To all the detractors of the S-tank,
Reason why I say S-tank is good for singapore is because its small and manoevreble. I watched the S-tank move and fire its cannons, the tank is design to "rise up" and tracts can move opposite directions to position tank fire, without needing to move the tank.
Its low design signature, allows it to hide within buildings. It can get out of tight corners and difficult terrain easily, just watch the second you-tube video below.
Sweden replaced the S-tank with Leopard tanks because of the collapse of Soviet Union, they no longer have the threat of invasion from the east. S-tank was designed to hide in the forest folliage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fARGfVA7Mm8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4eL1G8yyoo&feature=related
105mm cannot penetrate? Use salbot rounds. Besides, the only other neighbour that capable of invading Singapore with tanks is Malaysia, and they are using the polish made T-72 tanks which have a weakness in the hull design due to the ammo situated there. During the gulf war, it was proven T-72s have major weakness design flaw.
T-72s does not have composite or chobham armour. They can be easily taken out by russian made rpgs. The only protection they got from shape charge is the expensive and cumbersome reactive armor.
Of course there are 105mm sabot rounds, you think we've never heard of them? Even the early 120mm apfsds cannot penetrate some uparmored T-72 head on.
T-72 ammo will explode spectacularly if you hit the ammo carousel deep inside the tank under the crew compartment (all tanks of the era had ammo in the crew compartment). Meaning you can kill it with RPG or 105mm, but only a tank round low to the side will ignite the ammo. It will be hard with an RPG because of the wheels in the way.
If you hit the ammo, the turret will almost surely fly off. But on most RPG kills, the turret is still on.
You also pointed out that T-72s does not have composite or chobham armour, but this only applies to some T-72s. You also left out that all S-tanks only have homogenous steel armour.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
the lighter armed Terrex is used by the more mobile guard/light infantry units.Are there any plans for Guards to get Terrex?
-
Anyway I cannot understand why there are people who lament losing the 75mms. Those guns were useless against enemy tanks and good only for infantry support. Which means the crews should really have been in fear of enemy infantry's RPGs from the very first day. Also consider that jungle terrain prevents them firing from a good distance.
With Indon Leopard 2s and Malaysian PT91s out there, a thinly armored 105mm S tank would be seriously challenged in the exact same ways.
In any case, there is nothing you need to demolish with a 75mm that you cannot settle with a 30mm cannon round or with the infantry's own LAWs or Matadors. This includes bunkers.
-
wants to buy the 75mm tanks and put in my shed.where they sell them?any websites?
-
The S-tank is a good tank for its time. However, its not small nor that manouvreable. Its actually bigger than the T-54. 7.04m hull length, 3.6-3.8m width with only the height making a diff at 2.14m. Roughly the same size as a T-72 (T-72 slightly smaller at 6.95mx3.59mx2.23m). It is grossly underpowered in today standards with a 240/290hp engine. The 17 ton AMX-13 has a detroit 6V52T 290hp engine. Can you imagine how much power that gives on a 40+ ton MBT? Older T-72s are equipped with 780hp engine whilst Malaysia has equipped the PT-91M with a 1000hp engine and enables it to carry a lot more add on armour like the ERAWA which approaches 50 tons. As to 105mm, it has difficulty tackling 60 ton generation tanks like the Indian Arjun, China's type 99s and even other leopard 2s e.g. that Indonesia is trying to buy. Even in instances where it can still defeat advanced armour, it would require shorter distances to target or reduced targeting areas e.g. non-frontal or the use of heavier rounds e.g. DU which Singapore will not be able to purchase or manufacture. Clearly logic would dictates the differences in muzzle velocities, shell weight etc plays a part. On Malaysia's PT-91M, assuming that these are the same as legacy T-72s is misleading. There's a lot of discussion topics in the public domain including test results on the effectiveness of the CERAWA/ERAWA add ons and its ability to handle 105mm APFSDS rounds. No point repeating it here.
-
Why do you fear any potential Indon tanks? Just like the Battle of Britain, singapore's shores are well defended, for Indon to launch its tanks on singapore's shores they need to have an amphibous transport unit like this:
The only other way Indon can bring their tanks to Singapore is by malaysia.
Ok granted the S-tanks 105mm turrets can't do much damage to the armor of more superior MBTs. However if you use uranium tip warheads, it can penetrate thru the armor of many conventional MBTs. During the gulf war, APC bradleys were used to fight T-72s with great efficiency using uranium tip warheads.
-
Anyways, where is SAF going to find land to train 154 tanks? without disturbing the residential and commercial areas?
-
No fear of Indonesian tanks. They are more likely to face Malaysia in Borneo. Just highlighting the increasing number of 60 ton generation tanks. Singapore has other means of tackling these including Apache helos. Trading in uranium (including depleted) is heavily regulated, more so than conventional methods. Never seen US (or any other country) exporting these yet. As to L2 training, besides Sungei Gedong in SG, Singapore crews train in Germany (logical) as part of the purchase agreement (Ex Panzer Strike in Bergen). From 2008, the L2s also exercise/live fire in Ex Wallaby for 65 days a year at shoalwater bay. Armour training is done in several countries including Brunei, Thailand and India.
-
Originally posted by speakoutfor:
Anyways, where is SAF going to find land to train 154 tanks? without disturbing the residential and commercial areas?
train?its not live rounds?they can try oz by shipping them all in and shipping them all out.However training in germany which seems expensive is the only best option as they have more tanks and AP rounds to sell u and wont give any problems at all in case of emergencies as you are the true customers of their country and industries.Plus the germans are efficient and fast when they sell stuff to foreign customers who need tanks straight away during an invasion.hell..they would even skip the paperwork and hand u all the keys to the tanks and ammo without any questions.:)just make sure u got your own ships to transport back to spore for the invasion.
150 or even 200 tanks is small amount to protect place from shenton way to jurong to changi and pulau beriyani.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Are there any plans for Guards to get Terrex?
See last sentence.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/publications/cyberpioneer/news/2009/September/03sep09_news.html
"From Feb next year (2010), all active infantry and guards battalions will begin training to operate from the vehicle."
-
The spore tank training scheme is not practical, expensive and full battlefield training only limited to crew excursions to germany.
Have they not thought of using tank simulators?
As for depleted uranium, why not? Just saw in wikipedia that some DSO national laboratories in spore has some in storage.
precisely my point, singapore has apache helicopters so why need Leopard 2 tanks? Unless singapore has an attack minded mentality, if invaded, best defence is an offence. So using leopard 2 tanks to storm johor, secure water supply and key towns would be practical.
However deployment of leopard 2 into johor would be limited because only two bridges link spore to johor, if malaysia army engineers blow them up, SAF not able to get the tanks thru. So the best mode of deployment are LCACs.
If spore serious about its Leopard tanks, it should also complement with this for quick deployment:
Besides Apache, spore should look into other alternatives, the warthog tank killer and man-portable missle such as the Javelin - double shape charge.
-
You must think singapore is the only one smart enough to think of storming thru johor, with tanks?
-
I ask you this logic. If singapore were to be attack by malaysia, would they just sit down there and defend the island?
No. Because it has been proven during WW2, that defending singapore is not feasible. Singapore's best form of defence is offence. That is to conquer Johor.
Therefore singapore needs to blitz pass key cities and tanks are key to it, along with air superiority support.
-
I reckon malaysia has that figured out.