AMX-13
-
Well, if your main armoured divisions are used as homeland security,then I think the war has been lost.Armour is the spearhead of the advance, not the brick wall standing between your enemy and your citizens.Attrition war is something we cannot hold out on.Originally posted by tvdog:Why is being big not important? If the tank is small like the AMX-13 you can't even have enough armour to protect the tank against the lowly RPG.
And how come everyone say that SE Asia terrain and conditions is not suitable for full-sized MBT.
Heavy MBT's have fought in soft snow and sand. No terrain is too soft for tanks - that's why tanks were invented in the first place.
So a tank can't go into the jungle. But Singapore, for example, is probably less than 50% jungle. -
http://www.davidpride.com/Israeli_Armor/IL_Armor050.htm
AMX-13 father, Sherman mother= bastard Egyption tank -
Anyway , our tanks were made to camoflage to the jungles and not to the urban areas in singapore. Hope you know why...Originally posted by tvdog:Why is being big not important? If the tank is small like the AMX-13 you can't even have enough armour to protect the tank against the lowly RPG.
And how come everyone say that SE Asia terrain and conditions is not suitable for full-sized MBT.
Heavy MBT's have fought in soft snow and sand. No terrain is too soft for tanks - that's why tanks were invented in the first place.
So a tank can't go into the jungle. But Singapore, for example, is probably less than 50% jungle.
-
The ground in SE Asia is too soft for MBT.
The roads are too narrow.
The jungle too dense.
Small tanks are are more easily concealed in the forest.
Speed is more important than armour.
The 75mm gun has new ammo.
We don't need tanks cos we have other weapons like_________(fill in the blank)
The tank is an offensive weapon useless not defence
All over SE-Asia you'll find only light tanks.
'
'
'
These are just some of the reasons Singaporeans usually give when asked why we are so, so hopeless in the armour department. We readily accept and repeat every weak little excuse we've heard and we even invent some ourselves.
I applaud you guys for your loyalty to the country and faith in the authorities and all that but it is time to open your eyes to the truth.
Whatever the role of our light tanks in Singapore, the limitations of terrain, the speed, concealability, powerful ammo etc...there comes a time when this little tank has slow down or even stop to fight. And this is the time it is exposed to every anti-tank weapon imaginable. And if this tank is lightly armoured cos it's small, it and its crew will be easily destroyed by the lightest of anti-tank weapon.
The MBT is not big because it is good to be big. The MBT is big cos it needs heavy armour for protection of crew.
The Israelis have fought countless wars, many of them inside the cities of Lebanon and Palestine. Still, they saw no value in light tanks of ANY kind, least of all the AMX-13 - which they gladly disposed of. They used the Centurions, M113 and the heavily-armoured Merkava MBT INSIDE THE CITIES. If you want pictures I'll post them.
The Israeli are also expert at upgrading and improving equipment. They almost never throw anything away as they are constantly facing arms embargo. They were using the Shermans way into the 60s or later cos its thick armour protection was still sound.
Yet, they got rid of the AMX-13. They did upgrade the gun to 90mm, I think. Still the Israelis got rid of it. -
Well that's true. In armies that don't fight, armour plating is always something that is sacrificed.
-
unless the ground is really muddy.....i mean really really muddy..........then MBTs would sink into the mud....prolly with bigger surfaced tracks this kinda problem could be solved...Originally posted by tvdog:The ground in SE Asia is too soft for MBT.
The roads are too narrow.
The jungle too dense.
Small tanks are are more easily concealed in the forest.
Speed is more important than armour.
The 75mm gun has new ammo.
We don't need tanks cos we have other weapons like_________(fill in the blank)
The tank is an offensive weapon useless not defence
All over SE-Asia you'll find only light tanks.
'
'
'
These are just some of the reasons Singaporeans usually give when asked why we are so, so hopeless in the armour department. We readily accept and repeat every weak little excuse we've heard and we even invent some ourselves.
I applaud you guys for your loyalty to the country and faith in the authorities and all that but it is time to open your eyes to the truth.
Whatever the role of our light tanks in Singapore, the limitations of terrain, the speed, concealability, powerful ammo etc...there comes a time when this little tank has slow down or even stop to fight. And this is the time it is exposed to every anti-tank weapon imaginable. And if this tank is lightly armoured cos it's small, it and its crew will be easily destroyed by the lightest of anti-tank weapon.
The MBT is not big because it is good to be big. The MBT is big cos it needs heavy armour for protection of crew.
The Israelis have fought countless wars, many of them inside the cities of Lebanon and Palestine. Still, they saw no value in light tanks of ANY kind, least of all the AMX-13 - which they gladly disposed of. They used the Centurions, M113 and the heavily-armoured Merkava MBT INSIDE THE CITIES. If you want pictures I'll post them.
The Israeli are also expert at upgrading and improving equipment. They almost never throw anything away as they are constantly facing arms embargo. They were using the Shermans way into the 60s or later cos its thick armour protection was still sound.
Yet, they got rid of the AMX-13. They did upgrade the gun to 90mm, I think. Still the Israelis got rid of it. -
in SAF context, 2 ppl will call for airstrike, CO via his GFAC officer, usually the DYS3 of the Bn.Pls don't go and assume US style of calling airstrike like the whole world is yours and citing some hollywood show again.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Well,to be honest,its not the size of the tank that matters these days.I mean,its not like during WW2 or wat where by the mere sight of an approaching tank leaves the troops wetting their pants.These days the troops are thought to fight a thinking battle,and with the aid of technology of anti-tank weapons like our new MATADOR,SPIKE etc..a normal infantry man can take out a tank.Even if the infantry man does not take out the tank himself,he can call for airstrike via A-10s or AH-64 gunships etc.Besides,look at the Americans in the gulf,their almighty M1A2 tanks cannot protect them from the narrow streets where they can be shot at freely by RPGs etc.So it really defeats the purpose.
Though I'm not reccommending that SAF follow the style of the US and get something like the Stryker,but I would say that it would be most advisable if we have something like that.And at the sametime have Light Tanks and Heavy Tanks. -
I would prefer the authority to confirm and call-in airstrikes be given to the FOs.Better a faster reaction on the ground rather than be incapacitated by a command workflow that might be too late for a pinned down force.Originally posted by Monaro_HSV:in SAF context, 2 ppl will call for airstrike, CO via his GFAC officer, usually the DYS3 of the Bn.Pls don't go and assume US style of calling airstrike like the whole world is yours and citing some hollywood show again.
Unless we re-work on the role of Armor in MOUT.Then the airstrikes might be negligible, only to be used in a offensive role, rather as a counterforce tactic to shell some positions in a defensive form of cover fire. -
FO aka Forward Observer are from Artillery, hence the FO calls Arty shots and not air strike.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I would prefer the authority to confirm and call-in airstrikes be given to the FOs.Better a faster reaction on the ground rather than be incapacitated by a command workflow that might be too late for a pinned down force.
Unless we re-work on the role of Armor in MOUT.Then the airstrikes might be negligible, only to be used in a offensive role, rather as a counterforce tactic to shell some positions in a defensive form of cover fire. -
SpecOps have given the anti-tank capability of infantry and airforce too much credit. Just because an infantryman can kill a tank doesn't make a tank useless.
We have swords, spears, arrows, rifles etc that can kill an infantryman for thousands of years, but that never made infantrymen useless.
Same goes for tanks. In the 90 years that tanks have been around, anti-tank weaons and tactics have kept up. But that never made the tank useless.
Read this excellent report on the Israeli incursion into Lebanon in 1982 that met fierce Syrian counterattack.
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_279.shtml
The tank that survived best was the Merkava. Many peole are aware of the fame of the Merkava but not clear on why it is so famous. It is its survivability in battle because of its armour protection and internal layout. Even when hit, the chance of the crew escaping alive is very high.
The worrying thing is the part is about the vulnerability of the M113. The losses were so high that they were withdrawn from the fight and the troops had to walk.
Against all collected wisdom, the US moving heavily into lightweight, lightly armoured wheeled vehicles like Humvee and Stryker. So many of their troops are gonna get killed.
I wonder what plans the SAF have for the Terrex? -
Obvious you are not been around heavy vehicles and tanks and know about the effect of terrains around the region.Originally posted by tvdog:Like everyone else, I am perpetually puzzled by SAF's continued lack of interest in the MBT area.
The AMX-13 is obsolete. Even in the mind of the most optimistic person, surely he must hold the same opinion.
MAF's Polish tank with the silly name remains a formidable force to be reckoned with.
Someone mentioned that these days it no longer takes a tank to kill a tank. While true, there's no reason why we shouldn't get some big mother of a tank going.
Why not? We can well afford it, after all.
Furthermore, our AMX-13 offers very poor crew protection. The armour is thin and even after all the add on armour, it'll still offer only weak protection. I'm sure most handheld anti-tank weapon will have no problem killing the AMX-13 and its crew. And tank crews, after all, are more precious than tanks.
In the 80's when we acquired the huge M-60 series of engineer vehicles, I thought we were going to get the M-60 MBT as well. But good thing we didn't. At least this means we can now go out and buy something fancy.
Due to the fact of the weather and terrain around, which is soft and rain often, the ground can be too soft for heavy tanks which will be struck more easy. The amx-13 is a very good tanks, yes it seem that it was outdated by now, however you have too the upgrade being done, with the replace of new and more power diesel engine, also using of the new tanks rounds which have much extra penetration power which the tanks that malaysia buy, it as good as any modern light and middle weight tanks. One thing about the AMX-13, is that it is very accurate in hitting the target if the gunner is well train. Also the light weight make it more mobile which can be transported faster and easier.
As for your arguement on handheld anti-tank weapon can take out Amx-13, yes even M1A1 also can be taken out easy, is not properly use. That why tanks and AFV alway work together as a team, which AFV and amour troopers are to protect the tanks from other folks infantry and take out the anti-tank weapon before they can fire. -
i heard someone ever told me that the amx is just big enough to actually traverse through the hdb blocks. he said the hdb blocks void decks have a specific distance between each pillar. and that is enough for the amx to go thru...
-
Sorry, I meant those forward based officers that call in airstrikes, think it's CAS controllers or something like that.Originally posted by Monaro_HSV:FO aka Forward Observer are from Artillery, hence the FO calls Arty shots and not air strike. -
Storywolf do you really know what you are talking about? Or as usual do you just repeat like a trained parrot about the ground condition here being different but in what way EXACTLY?Originally posted by storywolf:Obvious you are not been around heavy vehicles and tanks and know about the effect of terrains around the region.
In your empty head are you doing your own analysis or do you just argue for the sake of arguing?
What is so unique about the terrain in this region? What?
You mean there is no mud in Europe or other parts of the world? You mean it doesn't rain in Europe. It rains heavily even in the desert.
Why do you think they invented tanks IN THE FIRST PLACE? It is to counter the muddy condition of the shell cratered battlefield.
C'mon, stop talking co.ck. If our terrain is so bad then all our bulldozers at construction sites would have bogged down.
Just because the AMX-13 is small does mean it is better at traversing soft grounds than a bigger tank. Wide tracks would solve that problem. And on a larger tank, you can have wider tracks to distribute the ground pressure you dumbfcuk.
Next time you want to have a sensible discussion don't begin with a pointed statement directed at me.
You are one of those idiots who state no opinions of your own but wait for someone to make one and then swoop in with personal attacks. -
Ground pressure is not the issue. Most tracked armoured vehicles have roughly the same ground pressure, regardless of if it is a MBT or a APC. Anyway, you can fit wider tracks like the Malaysians will do to the PT-91s.
The issue is size. Many bridges in this region can only take vehicles up to a certain weight. The jungle tracks are only so wide. (see if u can find a pic of the PT-91 on a jungle track, there's one out there somewhere) So if you want your tanks to follow and support the armoured infantry, then MBTs will not do it cos they will not get through the jungle together with the IFVs.
Having said that, why are we comparing light tanks and MBTs? There is no comparison; in this land they ahve different roles.
Yes, I believe that MBTs have a role in this terrain. MBTs have been used successfully in Vietnam by the Australians (Centurions) and the US (M-48 ). They will be useful in urban terrain.
I wonder how the modern western MBTs which are heavier and larger will stand up though. -
they are suppose to help OC to plan support fire in defence and call fire during other ops. so FO actually need to know how to plan/place 81, 84, etc. to say that FO are limited to call arty fire is incorrect.Originally posted by Monaro_HSV:FO aka Forward Observer are from Artillery, hence the FO calls Arty shots and not air strike.
althought FO don't call air stike now (as far as i know) i don't see why they should not be train to. -
I am responding to schrecklichkeit's post. No,our SM1 are Not to be used in the HDB void decks.If you would notice that the newer HDB flats have void decks which is not possible even for a small car to drive through. You are right about the size of the tank for travelling through something though. They are advantagous for crossing a certain sort of terrain in our friendly Northern neighbours. As for what terrain, go figure it out.
-
---Off-Topic---Originally posted by fett:they are suppose to help OC to plan support fire in defence and call fire during other ops. so FO actually need to know how to plan/place 81, 84, etc. to say that FO are limited to call arty fire is incorrect.
althought FO don't call air stike now (as far as i know) i don't see why they should not be train to.
You know who should be given a more active role in directing arty fire and air-strikes? The Scouts and BRC (esp BRC). Coz they will be in-pos b4 the attack begins, and to be honest, the FOs i've seen were not very tactical.
Note to FOs: Mosquito Coil is easily seen in the dark! -
well based on the aussies experience in the vietnam war, the found that the centurions had extreme difficulties trying to navigate through the jungles. And no, it is not the mud that stop them. It is the foliage. They find it nearly impossible to bash through a jungle. In fact, one centurion tried to roll over a bamboo growth and next moment they discovered that the bamboo fliped the tank upside down. So generally, the aussies use the mbts for ambushes or city assults. So tvdog, if you say that mbts are useful here . . . i will say yes, to a certain extend. Mainly you use them for urban or ambushes. But for jungle warfare, it is hell of a different world. And no when we quote ground pressure, we are not simply parroting. You try to maneuver an m113 into a padi field, it gets stuck immediately. If you don't know the proper way of navigating around the padi field. So imagine a centurion for that matter. And you quote temperate and desert conditions. True, it gets muddy when it rains, but the vegetation down there is nothing compared to the tropical climate. And pal, when you were talking about israel, you were talking about urban warfare. Most of us here are talking about jungle. You can't equate urban to jungle warfare. It is damn easy to move an MBT on nice paved roads. But if you try pusing yourself in vegetation so damn thick together with muddy ground, you are going to be over heated , your tank is going to be over strained and you are going to be hell exhausted.
-
x2Originally posted by 21Alpha:Ground pressure is not the issue. Most tracked armoured vehicles have roughly the same ground pressure, regardless of if it is a MBT or a APC. Anyway, you can fit wider tracks like the Malaysians will do to the PT-91s.
The issue is size. Many bridges in this region can only take vehicles up to a certain weight. The jungle tracks are only so wide. (see if u can find a pic of the PT-91 on a jungle track, there's one out there somewhere) So if you want your tanks to follow and support the armoured infantry, then MBTs will not do it cos they will not get through the jungle together with the IFVs.
Having said that, why are we comparing light tanks and MBTs? There is no comparison; in this land they ahve different roles.
Yes, I believe that MBTs have a role in this terrain. MBTs have been used successfully in Vietnam by the Australians (Centurions) and the US (M-48 ). They will be useful in urban terrain.
I wonder how the modern western MBTs which are heavier and larger will stand up though.
But Iwant to add something abt ground pressure.
Conventionally it is calculated by the weight of the vehicle / area of surface contact to the ground(i.e area of the track/surface contact ).
But in reality , the pressure is higher at the point where the road wheels contact with the track, so the pressure is not evenly spread across the length of the track.
Therefore, when a 50 tons AFV vs a 13tons AFVs of the same ground pressure, it does not mean that both have same tactical mobility due to same the ground pressure. It is likely the smaller AFVs wil be less likely to be mired.
As for the experiences of Vietnam, MBTS was statistically less mobile than the lighter and smaller APC as reported.
Narrow jungle tracks which are "created" by civillian jeeps and logging trucks etc are still frequently found in SEA. Likewise the bridges there might not be able to withstand a 50 tons weight.
And there are plenty of rubber & palm tree plantations in MY , in which the trees are planted in such way to fully utilised the land which are quite narrow for big MBTs to maneuver.
During WW2, the Brits thought the armour is useless in MY only for paved road, but in reality, the Japs used light tanks in great effect against the Brits.
Let me quote an articles abt it:
The Scropion AFVs family started design in the 50s where one of the critera was that it should be able to maneuver in a rubber plantation in MY(MY was still a colony then), that is why they are light and small.
For the most part, the story of Japanese armored employment in the Pacific
war was a dismal tale of small units employed in static or infantry support roles. The Malayan campaign is the one instance in WWII where the
Japanese used armor effectively in an exploitation role. The best example
from this campaign occurred in the battle of the Slim River on January 7th,
1942. Although overlooked by most U.S. Army students of armored warfare,
it holds some important lessons in exploitation, improvisation, and junior
leader initiative.
The British defeat in Malaya has been the subject of much misconception, the
greatest being that it came about due to the superior jungle fighting ability of
the Japanese. In fact, little fighting was done more than a few kilometers from
trafficable roads.
The battle for Malaya was a battle for the maneuver corridors through the Malayan mountains and jungle. These corridors were from 50 meters to several kilometers wide, and were cultivated with rubber tree plantations
as well as other agriculture. Towns dotted the main roads and railroads
that ran down the length of the corridors. Although certainly lush with
vegetation, the corridors could not truly be classified as jungle. Significantly,
the rubber plantations had numerous side roads that connected with the main
road and allowed parallel trafficability. -
The scropion AFV was developed by UK. The role was to develop a family of AFV vehicles which can be used in different roles, Eg:
Light Recon
Anti Tank
APC
Hi-Speed cargo.
There are variou variants of the vehcile. but I believed the MAF uses the 76mm armed variants.
The intial role of the is to act as the recon screen of the the BAOR's (British Army On the Rhine) armoured element.
Its role is to be fast and maneroable and not really to fight MBTs. The76mm gun is spposed to be able to at leat offer some punch against MBTs (when it was first developed). A 30mm variant was also developed to counter IFV typed vechiles.... these two variants served in the '82 falklands war.
Later an upgunned 90mm variant was developed to counter newer MBTs.
So the scorpion was meant to serve in europe, don't think it was developed for Malaysia.
but the malaysian will probably have some factors in mind before they purchase the vehicles. -
We don't need tanks cos we have other weapons like_________(fill in the blank)
you have no idea my friend.....no idea
-
..."padi field", "jungle", and "rubber plantations" etc etc.
First of all, after WW1, most battles involved fighting in urban built-up areas.
And then there is the "bridge" excuse.
You think in all previous wars, tanks or any vehicles did not face the problem of weak, damaged, destroyed or non-existent bridges? Did people then decided that the MBT are useless because sometime the bridges are too small or simply not there when you need them? That's rubbish.
This is the silliest excuse as we have something called engineers that take care of these bridge crossing problems.
This is what I mean by people inventing excuses. War finds human beings at their most inventive at finding solutions and yet we sit here making up excuses for why we - or the enemy - don't need MBTs in this part of the world.
When the Japs attacked Malaysia, their light and medium tanks saw the most action on fast, road-bound forward thrusts. One Australian anti-tank gun crew shot about 6 or 7 Jap tanks coming round a bend in the major trunk road in one engagement.
Their tanks weren't manuevering through the jungle all the time. A tank that stays in the jungle all the time is of little strategic value.
But once the tank emerges out into the open as they must eventually, it will be exposed to all kinds of enemy fire on the ground and from the air.
If you are a crew of either the AMX-13 or the M113, your life expectancy is very short as even the lowly RPG will kill you.
The Israelis learnt the painful lesson of relying on the "speed" and "manueverability" of lightly armoured vehicles like the M113. No matter how fast or agile your tank is you can never outrun a RPG round or wire-guided missile.
So they turn to heavy armour especially in urban areas. They use the Merkava to ferry troops into the fight in urban built-up areas. When the Centurion became obsolete they turned those into APCs because they value its very thick armour. When they invented the ERA they quickly put them onto all their AFV especially the M113. The AMX-13 they just abandoned.
Why? They are more expert at upgrading than we are. There must be very good reasons why they found the AMX-13 hopeless.
The most significant proof that SAF does believe in MBT is the fact that we DO have the Centurion MBT - 100 of them. So why is everyone still saying how useless an MBT is in this part of the world?
One day if you are staring down the 120mm barrel of an enemy MBT, why don't you tell them that MBTs are "not suited to this region of the world?" -
I did not said that it was meant to be used onl in SEA , I was saying that when setup the design critria in the 50s, one of them is the width vehicle must be small enough for the vehicle to maneuver easily in a rubber plantation in MY.Originally posted by spencer99:The scropion AFV was developed by UK. The role was to develop a family of AFV vehicles which can be used in different roles, Eg:
Light Recon
Anti Tank
APC
Hi-Speed cargo.
There are variou variants of the vehcile. but I believed the MAF uses the 76mm armed variants.
The intial role of the is to act as the recon screen of the the BAOR's (British Army On the Rhine) armoured element.
Its role is to be fast and maneroable and not really to fight MBTs. The76mm gun is spposed to be able to at leat offer some punch against MBTs (when it was first developed). A 30mm variant was also developed to counter IFV typed vechiles.... these two variants served in the '82 falklands war.
Later an upgunned 90mm variant was developed to counter newer MBTs.
So the scorpion was meant to serve in europe, don't think it was developed for Malaysia.
but the malaysian will probably have some factors in mind before they purchase the vehicles.
This info was from a defence magazine that I have read in th 70s. -
Like you do?Originally posted by |-|05|:you have no idea my friend.....no idea
Big prize goes to you Mr Top Secret Nuclear Bomb Scientist. Give yourself a pat on the back.
Anyway, my point is, whatever secret weapon you think we have, I know for a fact that we do not have enough armour protection for AMX-13 tanks.