Singapore At War
-
25 to 30 tons? I dont think a tank that light gonna be able to survive a 125mm shot, even from head on, no matter whether you have ERA on or not. Also, a 105mm cannon is all it can accomodate, against the ERA equipped PT-91? Even with a sabot round, chances are, unless its a ralatively close ranged shot, penetration wont occur. Sacrificing survivability and firepower for mobility wont make sense if all you can do is get to where the fight is, and just get killed. Like that, we might as well have no tanks.
Why I recommended the K1A1 was because even though it weighed 50 tons, its still able to traverse our terrain, with its low pressure footprint, and all this is done without sacrificing firepower (uses the same cannon as the Abrams) or armor. I dont know much about the Leo1 yet, but that could also be a good candidate.
(BTW, Israel soesn't have any equivalents to the Russian tank defense systems) -
You do make a point about size does matter. Yes, numerous occassion in WWII where the allies were outgunned and out amoured by the Germans. The Allied guns could not penerate the Panzas armour whereas they were being knocked out 1 after another.Originally posted by YourFather:25 to 30 tons? I dont think a tank that light gonna be able to survive a 125mm shot, even from head on, no matter whether you have ERA on or not. Also, a 105mm cannon is all it can accomodate, against the ERA equipped PT-91? Even with a sabot round, chances are, unless its a ralatively close ranged shot, penetration wont occur. Sacrificing survivability and firepower for mobility wont make sense if all you can do is get to where the fight is, and just get killed. Like that, we might as well have no tanks.
Why I recommended the K1A1 was because even though it weighed 50 tons, its still able to traverse our terrain, with its low pressure footprint, and all this is done without sacrificing firepower (uses the same cannon as the Abrams) or armor. I dont know much about the Leo1 yet, but that could also be a good candidate.
(BTW, Israel soesn't have any equivalents to the Russian tank defense systems)
Lessons learnt in WWII were quickly applied to the tank design in the US and UK. That leads to today's Abrams and Challenger2.
The question then becomes, does SAF going to be engaging in a tank vs tank fight, if so, we definitely would need something that is equivalent to the MBT malaysia is getting. Secondly, what size of tank is suitable in our local condition? What kind of gun? 105mm or 120mm? Is 120mm too big? What about logistic? What about the combat engineers support? Does SAF have bridges that are rated to hold 50 tons tanks? What about folding capability?
That are lots of questions about the suitability and types of tanks to acquire. Personally, I see that the 40+ tons tanks are probably the heavest SAF can afford to field. K1A1 is an excellent tank, and unless it can be made slightly lighter without sacrificing the armour protection, then I guess it is still a little too heavy.
BTW, one does not always have to knock out a tank at the furthest distance especially in either dense tropical forest or in BUA. In tropical forest, the tanks are easiest picked up by ATGMs fired by helos. In FIBUA, tanks are best have thick armour with lots of external mounted remotely controlled machine guns. See the Israeli tank config and you will understand why. -
I did some reading up, and guess what I found? The Swedish CV-90! It weighs only 26 tons, but in its anti-tank config, it actually carries a whopping 120mm gun! Of course, armour wont be much, but it depends on not being found, and if found, not being targeted, to stay alive. It does this by a suite of laser and radar warning receivers for missile and threat detection, as well as a unique assemblage of pipes and nozzles encircling the top edge of its main structure with 1-in. tubing with spray nozzles every couple of feet to envelop the tank in a cloud of water vapor and droplets, thereby shielding it from enemy view -- whether the viewer is an optical sight, a laser illuminator or rangefinder, a thermal seeker or a MMW-radar-guidance system. Of course a standard fit of grenade launchers and granades are fitted, and an optional acoustic sensor may be fitted to the CV-90. to signal the approach of hostile helicopters or other enemy platforms. Other sensors may eventually include forward-looking IR devices, missile-approach warners, active radars and the full suite of situational-awareness systems now being envisioned for the next generation of tactical-air-superiority aircraft.
This looks like a very promising anti-tank system. Dunno if we will be considering it? -
You can't ALWAYS avoid a tank to tank fight. You can put ambushes, and render condition unfavourable, but nothing beats the survivability of a tank. Sure, there can be other ways to kill a tank, with good use of infantry or other supporting arms. So in the end, what happens is that it limits the number of options we have to counter such incidences. True, terrain in the region may not be favourable to operate massive tanks, due to constricted battle space. But having lighter armored tanks, trying to fight in the same constricted battle space would probably result in a close range knife fight where the tank with the heavier armor would win. With luck or skill, maybe the lighter vehicle. Speed advantage in such a condition would be bull, cos there's hardly a chance to miss, and if their fire control is good enough, the light tanks WILL take hits. 45 ton vs 60 ton, 15 tons difference, how much speed difference, and acceleration difference would there be? Is it enough to dodge a mach 3 APFSDS round?
Honestly, do you guys think that our LSVs can possibly race around firing ATGMs and kill tanks with 1 hit? Modern explosive reactive armor can almost ensure that a tank can take 2 hits in the same position. Sure, some say we can hit around the flanks or the rear, but I say if someone's got heavy armor taking the point, they'll cover its flank with everything they have.
IMO, if we persist in believing that there is NO need for heavy armor, we might find ourselves in the same position as allied tankers in WW2. Them Sherman 75mm guns couldn barely scrach the German Tigers. While the Tigers simply picked the inadequately armored shermans off with their 88mm guns.
I remember this guy called Shinseki in the US ARMY, proposing to replace all the heavy armor with light "air mobile" armor, that could move quicker, highly manueverable, and pack the equivalent firepower of a tank. He proposed to replace M1A2s, and all heavy armor with a version of LAVs, armed with 105mm guns. He foresaw a future war, where speed, and maneuverability, where the LAVs would be more effective than the M1s. Urban enviroments, jungle warfare.
Myth: Wheeled armored vehicle can move faster in jungle, and muds.
Myth: Lighter and faster vehicles are more survivable in jungle and urban warzones.
The Australians learnt it the hard way when they sent LAVs to east timor. Their WHEELED LAVs virtually crawled in the MUD. Soon, the LAVs became more of a burden than help, when many simply toppled over to their sides when navigating rough terrain.
Lighter vehicles tend to get killed quicker too. Simply cos their armor is not enough to stop an RPG. The LAVs armor cant stop a 5.56 carbide tip round from penetrating its armor under 10 meters. .50 cal weapons will turn it into swiss cheese. Anti tank missiles, man portable or not, will almost guarantee a kill. You may be fast enough to dodge one rocket, lucky enough, maybe two. What about 3, 4, 5?
Fact is, tanks are not suited for FIBUA. Its dangerous for the tank and its crew. If its a fact that MBTs can't fight well in a urban area, why should a lighter armored tank be able to survive when a single hit can definitely kill it?
60 ton roadblock? On the defensive, yes, I WOULD want a 60 ton roadblock that actually shoots back at the enemy.
Verdict: I vote for at least 3 co. of Leo2A5. -
Someone (not me) must have read your mind and posted a pic of this very CV90 version on the newsgroup:Originally posted by YourFather:I did some reading up, and guess what I found? The Swedish CV-90! It weighs only 26 tons, but in its anti-tank config, it actually carries a whopping 120mm gun! Of course, armour wont be much, but it depends on not being found, and if found, not being targeted, to stay alive. It does this by a suite of laser and radar warning receivers for missile and threat detection, as well as a unique assemblage of pipes and nozzles encircling the top edge of its main structure with 1-in. tubing with spray nozzles every couple of feet to envelop the tank in a cloud of water vapor and droplets, thereby shielding it from enemy view -- whether the viewer is an optical sight, a laser illuminator or rangefinder, a thermal seeker or a MMW-radar-guidance system. Of course a standard fit of grenade launchers and granades are fitted, and an optional acoustic sensor may be fitted to the CV-90. to signal the approach of hostile helicopters or other enemy platforms. Other sensors may eventually include forward-looking IR devices, missile-approach warners, active radars and the full suite of situational-awareness systems now being envisioned for the next generation of tactical-air-superiority aircraft.
This looks like a very promising anti-tank system. Dunno if we will be considering it?
alt.binaries.pictures.military
Subject heading:
Swedish panser [10 of 21] - s_cv90120.jpg (1/1) - 76kb
Date: 22 March 2002 9:42 PM
-
Yes, a 60 ton roadblock that shoots back, sure it is. But then how much do one of this 60 ton roadblocks cost? Is it worth using a multimillion dollar roadbloack when something else can do the job just as effectively?Originally posted by Shotgun:60 ton roadblock? On the defensive, yes, I WOULD want a 60 ton roadblock that actually shoots back at the enemy.
Verdict: I vote for at least 3 co. of Leo2A5.
Yes lighter vehicles will be slowed down in mud, but what of heavier tanks. Bogged down, simple as that.
US did use armour in Vietnam. But the usage must be taken into context. Tanks were almost NEVER used for the conventional armour role envisaged. Instead they found themselves defnding firebases from static positions, escorting convoys and the like - simply because the terrain did not lend itself to armoured warfare. When the NVA tried using armour in a more conventional sense in 1972, try a search for "An Loc 1972" for the results.
We simply cannot compare armour battles in thr MidEast, W Europe or Russian steppes. These places are wide open, low-lying with solid ground. Of course tanks can move there, and armour and firepower will dictate terms. But in the region? Heavy tanks will be a liability. Why do you think the NVA used the PT-76 more than the T-55? Simply because its light, amphibious, can traverse terrain the T-55 can't. Horses for courses...
I tend to agree with YourFather and Joe Black. Lighter tanks, with displacement no more than 40-45 tonnes. If the CV90 can pack a 120mm, so much the better. -
Haha, I really got pretty excited when I found the CV-90, as it was light enuff to suit our specs, and had the firepower to knock out heavy tanks. Of course, it wont have the capability to take hits, but its survivability is based on NOT taking hits in the first place, through the pretty liberal use of sensors and enemy targeting-disrupting countermeasures.
What Shotgun said is true that there may come a time when our forces may come in close contact with tanks. In that case, of course, we would need tanks, and survivable tanks at that. (the CV-90s fit the bill, IMO)However, the LSVs are still very useful in that their extreme meneuverability and fire-and-forget capability gives tham a guerilla like capability, with the ability to 'shoot-and-scoot', to borrow an arty term. This will probably not stop an armour onslaught, but it will blunt an attack, and decrease the enemy's morale, cause they are only able to absorb hits without fighting back. However, this can only be done with good information on the enemy's whereabouts (ISR) , without which the LSVs may find themselves cornered. This is why I find getting the European ASTOR so attractive, and why a good link network to transfer needed info so important.
What Shotgun said about wheels not being suitable for jungle warfare is also true, and the US Army knows it. The reason why the LAV III (wheel) was chosen over our Bionix(track) still eludes me :-) Its also true that armoured vehicles are NEVER intended or suitable for FIBUA warfare. ATGMs and RPGs just make it too risky. Soldiers are needed and better suited.
Shotgun however, has the misconception that ERAs provide complete protection from ATGMs. Well, no. The Spike, Javelin and Tow-2B are some of the ATGMs that feature tandem warheads which are specially designed to handle the prospect of encountering ERAs. Also, the Spike, like the Javelin, can attack from the top of the tank because of its terminal dive profile. Thus penetration is virtually ensured.
Another misconception Shotgun seems to have is that lighter tanks are there so that they are more maneuverable and so thats supposed to keep them from being hit by tank rounds. If so, then you have missed the whole point of why lighter tanks are sought after. Lighter is better in the sense that its more DEPLOYABLE (and less restricted by terrain too), of course, maneuverability increases quite a bit, but the increase is never meant for it to dodge a shot. Why Shinseki wanted light brigades was that they could be deployed to the theater of operations in a MUCH shorter time through the use of airlift. The 70 ton Abram just cannot be deployed through airlift because its not feasible, and sealift would take months. The Light interim brigades comprising the LAV IIIs are never intended to replace the Abrams. What is intended to replace the Abrams is the FCS. The FCS, (which will consist of sub-40 ton vehicles) while still in concept phase, will make use of info tech to allow it to attck from stand-off, non-LOS engagements, thus ensuring survivability. Contact with the enemy is avoided as far as possible. Of course, full situational awareness is the bedrock on which this concept is based on, without which, this concept will never work.
Ok, after all these is said, we come back to how to survive the contact with enemy armour. Getting a Leo 2 just isn't feasible, as our land just isn't 'tank country'. Jungles are where we operate in, not rolling fields and plains. Even the Malaysians understood that, which was why they required a tank no more than 50 tons. Getting a bigger tank just ain't gonna cut it. Even my earlier proposal of the 50 ton K1A1 was found to heavy by Joe, and he was right. (BTW, the K1A1 was offered by the Malaysians, but was rejected) -
Totally agree with your postOriginally posted by YourFather:Ok, after all these is said, we come back to how to survive the contact with enemy armour. Getting a Leo 2 just isn't feasible, as our land just isn't 'tank country'. Jungles are where we operate in, not rolling fields and plains. Even the Malaysians understood that, which was why they required a tank no more than 50 tons. Getting a bigger tank just ain't gonna cut it. Even my earlier proposal of the 50 ton K1A1 was found to heavy by Joe, and he was right. (BTW, the K1A1 was offered by the Malaysians, but was rejected)
BTW, here is something about their Tanks selection http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/4875/malaysianarmy.html -
Spike and Javelin are perhaps one of the deadliest ATGMs in the business. Simply cos they strike from the top of the tank. Yes, in the jungles, AT crews can set up nice little firing positions to alternate around should any vehicles be encountered. And they can do well in an urban enviroment, setting up ambushes between buildings. However, that is only on the defensive. What about the offensive? Are light tanks gonna cut it? They can be deployed faster and more efficiently, and they can serve as an vanguard force well. But when the battle really needs heavy armor, what happens? We're not the only ones that have good ATGMs you know. (Note: Latest ERA WILL protect tanks from at least 1 hit from an ATGM on the FRONTAL ARC of an MBT.)
What I mean is that, together with the thickest armor around, +good fire control, NVG, and proper use. MBTs like the leo2 can have a place in our enviroment. Equipment that can fight, take hits and continue fighting, are force multipliers that can turn the tide of battles.
Shinseki's light armored brigade DOES have its merit. BUT replacing ALL HEAVY armor in the US Army?? Even the commander of the 82nd Airborne shot him down, cos he knew that rapid deployment forces needs to be followed up by tankers. Not mobile coffins.
Let us not end up in a difficult position when we realise that somewhere out there, in some point of time, we can't exploit a situation, bust down a stone wall or stand firmly simply because we don't have the equipment to do so. -
I think Gen. Shinseki's was talking about lightening both the 81st, 101 Airborne divisions and as well as the Marines. The core of the Army will still retain the Abrams. Reason why the Airborne divisions and the marines need lightening but with increase firepower is due to the lesson learnt in Desert Storm. The Airborne division and the Marines were facing Sadam's army with MBTs and all they have got were a couple of HAMVEEs and M551s. They didn't match up very well had Sadam been determine to march across the border into Saudi. The army had M8 AGS in the pipeline but cancelled it. Shinseki's idea was to resurrect the light mobile fighting force that can put some tonnes and firepower quickly. Given at that point in time when he had this idea, the Clinton administration wanted the US armed forces to be able to fight two major wars around the globe, and thus create the necessity to have mobile forces. Waiting for the US supply ships to bring Abrams and Bradleys between two different parts of the world in two different theater of wars will not cut it. Before the Abrams and Bradleys arrive from 1 theater to another, US forces may have already been run over by a far superior force.Originally posted by Shotgun:What I mean is that, together with the thickest armor around, +good fire control, NVG, and proper use. MBTs like the leo2 can have a place in our enviroment. Equipment that can fight, take hits and continue fighting, are force multipliers that can turn the tide of battles.
[/quote]
It looks good on paper, but you will find that in most cases, Leo2 is too heavy for most of Singapore and Malaysia terrain.
I propose SAF should get a good medium weight tank, with at least 105mm gun, preferably 120mm gun, good enough amour but armed with a good Defensive Aids Suite (DAS) includes laser, radar and missile approach warners; fire-supression device (automatic fire extinguisher in both the engine compartment and the tank round storage area), superior fire control sight which include hunter/killer mode, autoloader, stabalised gun, high first round hit probability and a low chassis/turret profile. Man, I almost sounds as if the CV90-120mm is the tank SAF should get...
Personally, I also like the upgraded Leo1A5 though the 105mm gun is a little under spec, but still ok. Korean K1 is close to an ideal tank as well but need a little dieting.
Shinseki's light armored brigade DOES have its merit. BUT replacing ALL HEAVY armor in the US Army?? Even the commander of the 82nd Airborne shot him down, cos he knew that rapid deployment forces needs to be followed up by tankers. Not mobile coffins.
[quote]
Let us not end up in a difficult position when we realise that somewhere out there, in some point of time, we can't exploit a situation, bust down a stone wall or stand firmly simply because we don't have the equipment to do so. A 40 ton tank will bust down a stone wall no problem. Even a 20 ton tank will do that no sweat. Don't forget one thing though, we might get Leo2, but the man portable ATGMs might just effectively make them useless in FIBUA. Just disable the tracks in a small alley, get a few sucide soldiers to run unto the turret and drop a hand grenade... hee hee... maybe I watch too much movies... 
my 2 cents,
Joe
"What's the difference between a citizen and a civilian?" -
hello everyone i found this forum by accident when i was searching for more info about singapore's military. i'm very impressed by your knowledge of military equipment & military related affairs. as for myself, i only got interested very recently in this topic.
singapore's military seems to be unique because it's such a tiny nation but has considerable military capabilities. i've picked up alot of info by reading you folks posts here!
about the tank issue, it seems that singapore needs to develop a light/medium weight tank specifically for her own needs since most tanks available are not suited for the task. i think ST Kinetics/DSTA should be able to tailor make a tank capable of answering to the challenge the recent malayasian purchase of polish tanks. in fact i would speculate that they are already working on it because they seem to want to develop a whole range to armour vehicles after the bionix & bronco. a light-medium tank would be logical and the fact that singapore really needs it.
btw i'm wondering if the AC-130 gunship that the US is using in every conflict now is suitable to kill tanks? because it is a very effective platform to unleash massive firepower to cover infantry troops in the front line. i'm surprised that singapore don't have this weapon in it's arsenal. or it should custom design a system similiar to it that would fit singapore's need for aircover for the infantry. -
Mooncake, nice to you to join in the discussion.Originally posted by mooncake:btw i'm wondering if the AC-130 gunship that the US is using in every conflict now is suitable to kill tanks? because it is a very effective platform to unleash massive firepower to cover infantry troops in the front line. i'm surprised that singapore don't have this weapon in it's arsenal. or it should custom design a system similiar to it that would fit singapore's need for aircover for the infantry.
AC-130 gunship, not a good platform to kill tanks. It is more useful for giving an area bombardment of concentrated ground forces. It is not effective anti-tank platform because it of it fixed wing nature and lack of appropriate precision target sight. Have you wonder how the 40mm or 105mm guns gonna aim at tanks and blast them? Gonna be darn difficult... Well, the closest fix wings that can can do that well are A-10 Warhog and the Harriers. The A-10 has low speed and good laser designator while harriers can hover and fly at very low forward speed (kinda like attack helos). The best platforms for anti-tanks are still no doubt the attack helos like Apaches, which RSAF has already acquired 20 of them....
Joe -
Welcome to the board! I'll pass my self-intro (lol)Originally posted by mooncake:hello everyone i found this forum by accident when i was searching for more info about singapore's military. i'm very impressed by your knowledge of military equipment & military related affairs. as for myself, i only got interested very recently in this topic.
singapore's military seems to be unique because it's such a tiny nation but has considerable military capabilities. i've picked up alot of info by reading you folks posts here!
about the tank issue, it seems that singapore needs to develop a light/medium weight tank specifically for her own needs since most tanks available are not suited for the task. i think ST Kinetics/DSTA should be able to tailor make a tank capable of answering to the challenge the recent malayasian purchase of polish tanks. in fact i would speculate that they are already working on it because they seem to want to develop a whole range to armour vehicles after the bionix & bronco. a light-medium tank would be logical and the fact that singapore really needs it.
btw i'm wondering if the AC-130 gunship that the US is using in every conflict now is suitable to kill tanks? because it is a very effective platform to unleash massive firepower to cover infantry troops in the front line. i'm surprised that singapore don't have this weapon in it's arsenal. or it should custom design a system similiar to it that would fit singapore's need for aircover for the infantry.
On whether the AC-130 has an anti-tank capability, its possible that its 105mm howitzer (only weapon on the Spectre which could possibly harm a tank) could be effective against tanks if the shell hits, but I dont know how accurate the howitzer is, and whether it can compensate for the motion of the tank. The howitzer rounds would at most damage the tank's fragile EO and other exposed systems. However, anti-tank missions are better left to the A-10 and the Apaches.
On why Singapore doesn't have AC-130s? Simple. Its a very highly specialised and dedicated platform, suitable only for unique situations (convoy destruction, troop suppression) and threat levels (low anti-air threat level in the plane's area of ops). Singapore cannot afford to have such a highly specialised aircraft which can only be used in select circumstances.
Also, its expensive to purchase and maintain these kind of aircraft. On top of all these, America won't sell them to Singapore anyway, considering that its robust self-defense system uses some of the more advanced jammers and other avionics in the USAF inventory.
Mmmm, also, Joe, the Harriers , while they COULD hover or fly at very low speeds, they try to do that as little as possible, because jet engines are very VERY inefficient when hovering. (But they are very good for long distance travel. Rotors are just the opposite - good for hovering, but less efficient for long dist. travel. Thus the idea for the tilt-rotor) The Harrier expends a pretty large percentage of fuel just to hover for a minute or two.
Oh ya, there's one strange news I found: Apaches have a problem firing their missiles for fear of debris hitting their tail rotor! Hopefully they'll fix the prob B4 we get our Apaches.... look here for more info : http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/25/napac25.xml
BTW, can someone tell me what's the total program cost of Singapore's purchase of the 6 La Fayette frigates?
[This message has been edited by YourFather (edited 27 March 2002).] -
Now this is super strange. I would have expect should issues would have been resolved long long time ago. According to the news article the problem would not be limited to the Longbow Apaches but to all variants, unless the debris are actually caused by the millimeter wave Hellfires.Originally posted by YourFather:Oh ya, there's one strange news I found: Apaches have a problem firing their missiles for fear of debris hitting their tail rotor! Hopefully they'll fix the prob B4 we get our Apaches.... look here for more info : http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/25/napac25.xml
Secondly, the main and tail rotors are supposed to withstand up to 23mm AA gun rounds.... why can't they withstand the debris then? Is the backwash from the main rotor causing the debris to cause more damage than 23mm rounds?
Lastly, can't the add some sort of deflector shields as part of the wing stubs extension to partly deviates the angle where the debris and at the same time reduce the amount of debris from the Hellfires? Boeing/MD must have been the bigest fools to let such a thing slipped for so long. Why then Egypt, Israel, Japan, Singapore, Nethelands and the UK purchase Apache if the situation is that bad? -
AC-130 for killing tanks?? Yes. When the first AC-130Hs were sent to Vietnam, some of the things the Americans found out was:
- the 105 tends to open tanks up like a nutcracker due to velocity + angle/location of shell penetration(almost always hitting the top or engine decking)
- Despite the jungle of the Ho Chi Minh trail, AC-130s had no problems locating trucks(their main quarry) and hitting them effectively when they were on the move(And this using early 1970s tech)
The flip side is the platforms vulnerability. Its basically a C-130 with guns, so its performance is the same as a lightly loaded trash-hauler. When the NVA started moving radar-drected AAA and SAMs to defend Uncle Hos trail the Yanks lost a number of AC-119s and AC-130s. thus they started sending cab-ranks of F-4s and F-105s to do SEAD for the Spectres(cab ranks needed cos the jets have less endurance).
In Gulf War, an AC-130 was lost when the bird was caught over enemy territory AFTER sunrise, allowig bad guys to target the big bird with AAA/SAM visually
Over Afghanistan, AC-130s were only sent in AFTER the bulk of Al-Qaeda/Taliban heavy AAA/SAM threat was nullified. Although with the terrain, it does leave me wondering: Should someone with a MANPADS hide on a mountaintop and wait till a AC-130 drones by, would it be possible to nail it? since an AC-130 flying 10000ft ASL is only 2000 feet AGL when looking from a 8000 ft mountain.
Moral of the story is, AC-130 is a effective tank killer. But, and only but, air supremacy(not just superiority) is achieved over the battlefield.
Welcome to the discussion Mooncake. Hope you learn lots here.
[This message has been edited by Viper52 (edited 28 March 2002).] -
Sorry, no. Unfortunately Gen. Shinseki was REALLY proposing to phase out ALL of the Army's Heavy's in favor of LAVs with 105mms. It caused an MAJOR uproar in the US Army, getting objections from almost command in the Army. You see, his idea developed not only for faster and "more efficient" deployment, but also to reduce the "mountains" of metal parts kept to maintain heavy armor. Sadly, he forgot that these metal parts would be replaced with rubber wheels. Hrmm... who knows? Explosive Reactive Rubber Armor add ons? *shrugs*
In anycase, even with the LAVs being lighter than the Bradleys, wheeled and all. When upgraded to the 105mm versions, they would still end up equaling the weight of bradleys, and together with all the proposed additional armor add ons, it will be AS large as a bradley. He shouldnt even have brought up his half-cocked proposal. -
Just checked up on the CV-90 120mm variant. I've got one word.... "nuts!"
That version of the CV-90 is better suited to replace our SM1s than to replace our centurions. It can only stop up to a 30mm APFSDS round form the front arc. Any thing bigger than that will kill it instantly. Ouch!
I still strongly believe that a battalion of Leo2A5s will provide a lot of help at crucial areas. -
Aiyaya, Shotgun, I thought I've already emphasized on how the CV-90 achieves its survivability?
First of all, lets just say that a tank's survivability comes from this maxim:
DonÂ’t be seen.
DonÂ’t be hit.
DonÂ’t be penetrated.
DonÂ’t be killed.
Most tanks emphasize on the 3rd part 'DonÂ’t be penetrated', through the addition of more armour. However, this bogs down the tank, and decreases its mobility.
The difference with the CV-90 is that it concentrates on the 'DonÂ’t be seen.
DonÂ’t be hit.' part. And it has the most extensive suite available to any tank to achieve this. I'm tired of repeating myself, so look at my above post to see what its is comprised of. -
guys thanks for the input on the AC-130 gunships.
from what i've read singapore will begin to receive it's apache copters this year. that is an excellant weapon to fight against tanks. singapore still needs to explore cheaper ways to hunt and kill tanks, the apache is great but very expensive and even after full delivery it will only have 20 of them. some of you are enthusiatic about the swedish CV-90, perhaps it can be a perfect candidate to replace the present AMX light tanks in the army when their service life is due.
does anyone have a link or pix of the SAR-21 assault rifle with silencer/suppressor attached to it? i tried to find that in the net but was unsuccessful. even wrote to the army website for a pix but they said they don't have it! i'm curious to what it will look like.
------------------
"Is it me or the sword you want?"~Jen Yu
CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON -
Basic argument against the Leo2A5 for the SAF, or any tank heavier than 50 tonnes, good tank or not, is that it is unsuitable for the terrain, unsuitable for the bridges, unsuitable for traveling over the soil, unsuitable for traveling over the roads in the area it's expected to fight in. After this, nothing else matters.
The SAF and MAF has got this spot on.
[This message has been edited by Viper52 (edited 28 March 2002).] -
"Don't be seen" Its hard to be part of a armored spearhead without being seen you know. Optics are so advanced these days that even the night is not much cover. We all know that US optics can even see right through smoke. And I do believe that the PT-91s have a decent optics/night/thermal system. So, if we don't have a survivable tank, the only things that stands between those PT-91s and us are our Apaches and hopefully other CAS assets. Effectively, you have the hammer, but no anvil.
Okay, point taken, Leo2s and tanks of its class are a tad bit heavy to run on local terrain. So 50 ton is the heaviest it gets. So unfortunately, we'll have to look for one that is armored heavily enough to survive shape charged warheads.
Worst come to worst we buy T-90S, and send them over to the Israelis to re-equip them. -
You overestimate the capability of IR sights and lasers. Smoke can be specially designed to block off different wavelengths of IR radiation. Some are even designed to give millimeter wavelength protection, laser protection and IR protection all at one time! Even the Abram's 2nd gen IR sight's performance will be degraded, if the smoke obscures the wavelength at which the IR sight is operating at.
-
this is not related to tanks, but i read yesterday that malaysia is going to purchase submarines and start a sub program. i think they said it would be a used sub from turkey that would be refitted and upgraded. plus there is some sort of training program too. seems that malaysia is right on the heels behind Spore.
it would take years to fully train a crew to operate subs but they're working on it!
and another piece of news, malaysia will establish their own space agency this july! that mahathir is an ambitious guy.
------------------
"Is it me or the sword you want?"~Jen Yu
CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON -
Talk talk talk. All talk, very little action. That's them. Maybe they'll get the Subs, but that's probably not so soon. BTW, anybody know what Torpedoes we have other than Whiteheads?