AMX-13
-
yep, thats a fact, in fact the armour of the anx 13 as with all light tanks at the thickest parts is only 5cm. Barely able to withstand 0.5 calibre machine guns.Hence, it is better for the amx 13 to play shoot and scoot rather than a direct confrontation. Sure we can place laminated or bolt on armor to the amx 13, but that would increase the weight of the amx 13 and reduce the power to weight ratio of the amx 13 drastically, hence defeating the purpose of its role.Originally posted by tvdog:Like you do?
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.
one thing i don't really like about the amx 13 is that it does not have a stabilised turret. hence it cannot fire on the move. So by doing the stop shoot and scoot technique, you really lose plenty of precious time.
Tankee you can clearify that with me?
Otherwise, for what it was designed for, i believe it can excel in its role if it is used properly. -
That's because the AMX-13 is nearly 55 years old. You can upgrade it all you want but it remains a grandfather tank. And the turret gun elevation is of a funny French design that no tank has attempted to copy during the last 60 years. This funny design probably made it impossible to stabilise with gyro or anything.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:one thing i don't really like about the amx 13 is that it does not have a stabilised turret. hence it cannot fire on the move. -
True, but so does MBTs.Originally posted by tvdog:..."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 it hopeless.
The most significant proof that SAF does believe in MBT is the fact that we DO have the Centurion. So why is everyone still saying how useless an MBT is in Singapore?
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?"
In fact , practically all modern ATGM could destroy a MBTs as well.
You talk abt RPG, the latest RPG like the 105mm RPG-27/PG-29 for RPG-29 and PG-7VR for RPG-7V(all tandem HEAT)penetrates 750mm behind ERA.
For example MY have these, BHAKTAR SHIKAN ,MILAN 2T ,METIS -M ,ERYX, and all these are all sufficient to destroy a MBT.
Even in Iraq, the insurgent used the older RPG against the side and rear of M1A1 MBTs and they are very successful.
Therefore, does MBT really more survivable against modern anti-tank weapon?
Not really, especially not against modern ATGM.
Here an article written by an Canadian officer's view of the future of MBT:
http://198.231.69.12/papers/csc29/mds/lamontagne.doc
I think a lot of us have already provided you why light tanks are useful in SEA, and it was these restrictions due to the terrain that they are useful, you are not wrong to say tat they offered much lower protection than MBTs, but they do offer better tactical mobility than MBTs in such terrain.
And with the introduction of more deadly AT weapons, the heavier MBTs does not mean that they are invincible, in fact there are now getting more or less same as light tank against such weapons.
In today scenario, a new light tank should offer protection against medium calibre cannon as well as the older RPG like the RPG-7.
It will be compromise between protection and mobility.
Afterall all tanks design is a compromise between firepower, protection and mobility.
If you check the orbat of all the South American and SEA nations, you will find that practically all of them have light tanks in their inventory, dun tell me that they are all wrong???
And all of them do not know their own terrain well???
In fact, some own MBTs too, but they still continue to use their light tanks. Why???
In fact , I think in the 90s, the Thai was looking for more new light tanks, a US company was offering StingrayII light tank, the Thai already have lot of light tanks and at the same time getting cheap 2nd hand M60 MBTs from the US, so why are they still looking for new light tank??
So either you are wrong or all the armies of SEA and South America are wrong, in fact based on your argument all these countries' top brass are all parrots who do not know their own country terrain well!!!!
Dun tell me tat all of them did not do a study on what AFVs they should use??
The countries that have both light tanks as well as MBTs should know , afterall their tankees have all the opportunity to test both type in all the terrain they should operate. -
During the 1960's Indo-Pakistan War, PAF was able to capture large numbers of IAF AMX-13.
They captured so many they formed a couple of units using captured IAF AMX-13.
But the website didn't state why the Indians abandoned them in such numbers.
After the war, the Indians also retired the AMX-13 from service. -
i didn't say it is uselessOriginally posted by tvdog:..."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?"
nor did i say it is overwhelmingly useful.
I say each tank has a specified kind of role.
of course a tank performs best in an open road. But if it has to move down an open road it is going to be attacked on its flanks. Thats why you must have a tank that navigates in a jungle. Read any books about the war in russia. what happened to the tigers that tried to move in a convoy along a straight road.
and fyi bridges ain't an excuse. if you think about it, to transport a 50 ton tank, you must have a bridge to be able to hold it. and there are not that many bridges say up north that is designed to hold 50 tons. true we have combat engineers, but that means for every advance of the mbt, it must wait for the combat engineers to follow up before they can advance furthur. And while the combat engineers are able to carry 50 ton vehicles, the question is how many 50 ton vehicles can it carry at any one time?9if they have to load up one tank and ferry it across a river each time, you are going to waste alot of time. So this is going to be a logistic nightmare.
so in the end, this is a role of an mbt in sea. It is to support the infantry in an urban assult, or to aid as a force multiplier in an ambush. Light tanks, are best to be used as a form of blitzkreit, to do a very fast and overwhelming strike where the enemy least expect it. And what better ways than to run through the jungle?
So you have a point in having MBTs. But the thing about replacing the role of a light tank with an MBT is an absolute no no. -
it was because of these reasons thats why the stingray and M8 programme came out. In the end, somebody thought that tatical mobility and firepower might be more suitable for these regions. Hence, we have tanks like the TAM and the united defense prototypes coming out once againOriginally posted by gary1910:True, but so does MBTs.
In fact , practically all modern ATGM could destroy a MBTs as well.
You talk abt RPG, the latest RPG like the 105mm RPG-27/PG-29 for RPG-29 and PG-7VR for RPG-7V(all tandem HEAT)penetrates 750mm behind ERA.
For example MY have these, BHAKTAR SHIKAN ,MILAN 2T ,METIS -M ,ERYX, and all these are all sufficient to destroy a MBT.
Even in Iraq, the insurgent used the older RPG against the side and rear of M1A1 MBTS and they are very successful.
Therefore, does MBT really more survivable against modern anti-tank weapon?
Not really, especially not against modern ATGM.
Here an article written by an Canadian officer's view of the future of MBT:
http://198.231.69.12/papers/csc29/mds/lamontagne.doc
I think a lot of us already provided why light tanks are useful in SEA, and it was these restrictions due to the terrain that they are useful, you are not wrong to say tat they offered much lower protection than MBTs, but they do offer better tactical mobility than MBTs.
With introduction of more deadly AT weapons, the heavier MBTs does not mean that they are invincible, in fact there are now getting more or less same as light tank against such weapons.
Today, a new light tank should offer protection against medium calibre cannon as well as the older RPG like the RPG-7.
It will be compromise between protection and mobility.
If you check the orbat of all the South America and SEA nations, you will find that practically all of them have light tanks in their inventory, dun tell me that they are all wrong???
And all of them do not know their own terrain well???
In fact, some own MBTs too, but they still continue to use their light tanks. Why???
In fact , I think in the 90s, the Thai was looking for more light tanks, a US company was offering StingrayII light tank, the Thai already have lot of light tanks and at the same time getting cheap 2nd hand M60 MBTs from the US, so why are they still looking for new light tank??
So either you are wrong or all the armies of SEA and South America are wrong, in fact based on your argument all these countries' top brass are all parrots who do not know their own country terrain well!!!! -
WHERE did I say ALL LIGHT TANKS ARE BAD?Originally posted by gary1910:If you check the orbat of all the South America and SEA nations, you will find that practically all of them have light tanks in their inventory, dun tell me that they are all wrong???
That's something you have to make clear before you go and make sarcastic comments and put a lot of smiley faces in your posts.
I am talking about the AMX13 so don't twist my words. -
And to those of you who still insists that MBT are not suited to this region - our 2 northern neighbours operate MBTs.
MAF as we well know has the PT-91, 120mm mother of a cannon.
Thailand has a weird mix: M48, M60, Type 69.
If they ªand the South American and other SE Asian countries) don't have more MBTs it is because of a lack of funds not a lack of need.
Vietnam and Cambodia definitely operate MBTs of the outdated Communist types.
Cambodia has "40 T-55 tanks from the Czech Republic;and 50 T-55 and T-76 tanks from Poland". -
i have repeated 3 times in three post . . . MBT is useful in sea, in main roles such as urban warfare and ambushing.Originally posted by tvdog:And to those of you who still insists that MBT are not suited to this region - our 2 northern neighbours operate MBTs.
MAF as we well know has the PT-91, 120mm mother of a cannon.
Thailand has a weird mix: M48, M60, Type 69.
If they ªand the South American and other SE Asian countries) don't have more MBTs it is because of a lack of funds not a lack of need.
light tanks are better for a fast overwhelming attack. ie a calvary charge of the modern times.
But MBTs are definately not suitable for that role in this case.
In conclusion what we want is a good mix of light tanks and mbts.
easy enough to understand?
Now nobody here wants to pick a fight with you ok? all of us here have spent minutes trying to write what we know, and what we believe? so nobody is trying to be sacarstic to you. if you disagree with something, just voice it out with your own views. No need to accuse one another of twisting of words etc. Totally childish. -
Yes and no, the Thailand operate both MBTs as well as light tanks and even thinking of getting more light tank.Originally posted by tvdog:And to those of you who still insists that MBT are not suited to this region - our 2 northern neighbours operate MBTs.
MAF as we well know has the PT-91, 120mm mother of a cannon.
Thailand has a weird mix: M48, M60, Type 69.
If they ªand the South American and other SE Asian countries) don't have more MBTs it is because of a lack of funds not a lack of need.
For the Thai , the cheap one are those MBTs from 2nd hand US stock like M60s(maybe even free).
As for light tank , they are getting brand new Stingray, I think Scorpion too, and those certainly not cheap, Scorpion is abt USD1M in the 90s.
Why I say this is, since the Thai are getting cheap (maybe even free)MBTs from the US, so why pay money for brand new lighttank???
Becos to them both MBTs and lighttanks have their role to play depending on the terrain. -
I'm sorry, but I wasn't talking to you. You mean I can't have conversations here that doesn't include you?Originally posted by CenturionMBT:i have repeated 3 times in three post . . .
blah blah blah.....Now nobody here wants to pick a fight with you ok? -
If we were to make a comparison, the Stingray is by far a much more superior tank than the AMX-13.Originally posted by gary1910:As for light tank , they are getting brand new Stingray, I think Scorpion too, and those certainly not cheap, Scorpion is abt USD1M in the 90s.
It has a bigger gun, better armour and I'm sure better engines etc.
I could be wrong but I think the Stingray was also offered to Singapore or we at one time considered it? -
wow..interesting debate going on here..Lemme put my two cents in..
The SAF's armour doctrine is different in a sense from out neighbours up north for that matter. Ours is one of mobility warfare a la' "Blitzkreig" style of warfare. In that sense, we have a need for light tanks in our ORBAT to fulfil that requirement. If everyone has realized, the SAF has requirements regarding the width and size of its armoured vehicles, so that it can cross plantations easily, be it rubber or palm..
To quote Derek da Cunha's argument, M'sia's overall strategy is one of a sledgehammer; slow but with a massive strike, it will obliterate. The SAF is like a rapier; light and fast..but lethal after awhile...
Yes, our neighbour up north and even Thailand have MBTs in their inventory...but what is their defence strategy like as compared to ours? Are they as mobile as we are overall? Where are they deployed? How are the MBTs employed?
The SAF is able to field MBTs; that's not a problem, considering our resources, both financial, manpower and logistical. We are capable of absorbing and deploying these platforms. Question is, should we follow the path of others in employing MBTs? We have to also remember that our armour have to cross the straits; not just rivers and streams. That means that weight considerations have to be extended towards loading MBTs on our LSTs, as well as the smaller landing craft. It will then become a balance of how many tanks we should load, as opposed to AFVs, etc etc...
Tvdog, regarding the Stingray tank...there is some controversy regarding the vehicle...Thailand is the only country that bought it. Apparently, there were hull cracks discovered on many of the tanks, which sparked off an exchange between the manufacturer and the RTA. You can find that in: J.N. Mak, "Armed But Ready?ASEAN Conventional Warfare Capabilities," Harvard International Review, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Spring 1994), pp. 20-24. Hope this helps...
-
Apparently, the Thai tank crews are so impressed with the power to weight ratio of the Stingray that they use the light tank for a "jumping" competition. They acclerate the tank up a ramp and then "leap" some distance before landing.... so you can imagine the stress it gives to the vehicle!Originally posted by Tango1:wow..interesting debate going on here..Lemme put my two cents in..
The SAF's armour doctrine is different in a sense from out neighbours up north for that matter. Ours is one of mobility warfare a la' "Blitzkreig" style of warfare. In that sense, we have a need for light tanks in our ORBAT to fulfil that requirement. If everyone has realized, the SAF has requirements regarding the width and size of its armoured vehicles, so that it can cross plantations easily, be it rubber or palm.. To quote Derek da Cunha's argument, M'sia's overall strategy is one of a sledgehammer; slow but with a massive strike, it will obliterate. The SAF is like a rapier; light and fast..but lethal after awhile...
Yes, our neighbour up north and even Thailand have MBTs in their inventory...but what is their defence strategy like as compared to ours? Are they as mobile as we are overall? Where are they deployed? How are the MBTs employed?
The SAF is able to field MBTs; that's not a problem, considering our resources, both financial, manpower and logistical. We are capable of absorbing and deploying these platforms. Question is, should we follow the path of others in employing MBTs? We have to also remember that our armour have to cross the straits; not just rivers and streams. That means that weight considerations have to be extended towards loading MBTs on our LSTs, as well as the smaller landing craft. It will then become a balance of how many tanks we should load, as opposed to AFVs, etc etc...
Tvdog, regarding the Stingray tank...there is some controversy regarding the vehicle...Thailand is the only country that bought it. Apparently, there were hull cracks discovered on many of the tanks, which sparked off an exchange between the manufacturer and the RTA. You can find that in: J.N. Mak, "Armed But Ready?ASEAN Conventional Warfare Capabilities," Harvard International Review, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Spring 1994), pp. 20-24. Hope this helps...
Yes the Stingray is a much moer "modern" tank compared to the AMX-13. The reason why we consider but didn't adopt the stingray shouldn't put it down.
Afterall we already have 350 AMX13, we can't replace them in one shot.
As for the SAF's strategy of "agility" when the AMX-13 was envisioned, it does have a certain level of agility compared to its comtemporary "heavy tanks".
The SM1 upgrades gives it new suspension and engines and does continue to provide some level of agility.
But I think with the improvements in guided Anti Tank missles and light weight LAWs, it would be prudent to switched to a moreprotected vehicles. -
I do not know of the SAF's doctrine of so-called "blitzkreig". If it is true I have no problem with that. This strategy is still very sound.
I do know that tanks are used to spearhead the thrusts of most conventional land warfare.
Yes, the AMX-13 are fast - but are they so fast you can't hit them with .5 HMG with armour piercing shells or other anti-tank weapons like RPG and ATGMs?
Though we talked about a lot of things everyone's argument was that because of terrain, bridge size, etc we need light tanks.
While I do not agree with this statement, I wasn't dissing light tanks. I WAS SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT AMX-13.
What I am saying, is that the AMX-13 and its crew has zero survivability in a real battlefield. -
Thot came out in newspaper Mindef alr looking for AMX replacement... Think for the current application b4 Msia MBT come into service, our AMX is good enough and save the tax payer a lot of $$$
-
This is the best SAF can get to replace its AMX-13 if it wanted to continue to have a light -weight tank! Plus it can swim across Johor Strait relatively with ease.
The Type 63A is China's second generation amphibious
tank to replace the ageing Type 63 in current service. The
prototype of the Type 63A received a series of tests and trials
before it was finally approved by the PLA in early 1997.
The Type 99 differs from its predecessor by the
addition of a new turret with a reduced-velocity 105 mm gun and
redesigned hull. The new gun could fire both conventional AP/HE
rounds and laser-guided anti-tank missiles, giving the tank the
punch to take out most light tanks in the world, and making a
serious challenge to the modern main battle tanks (MBTs).
The lengthened hull offered increased flotation for
the heavier turret and improved swimming characteristics. A 580 hp
powerpack gives the tank a maximum swimming speed of 28 km/h. Other
improvements include computerised fire control systems with dual-way
stablisations and latest thermal image night visions.
The Type 63A has a similar layout as the Type 63,
featuring a larger boat-like hull and a welded turret surrounded by
storage racks for extra protections. The 105 mm rifled gun was
derived from the gun on the Type 88 MBT, with special designs to
reduce the recoil and overall weight.
The Type 63A's main armament
includes a 105 mm rifled gun, which can fire armour piercing fin
stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS), high explosive (HE), and
high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) ammunitions, as well as laser guided
anti-tank missiles. The test showed that when firing APFSDS, the gun
could penetrate 560 mm steel armour at a distance of 2,000 m.
Secondary weapons include a coaxial 7.62 mm machine
gun and a 12.7 mm air-defence machine gun.
The Type 63A also features a new computerised light
spot fire control system with roof-mounted stabilised sights fitted
with day/thermal channels and a laser rangefinder.
The Type 99 has a better armour
protection than the Type 63. Welded turret and hull can be easily
fitted with composite and explosive reactive armour plates. Two sets
of four-barrel smoke/HE grenade launchers are mounted on the turret
sides
The Type 63A is powered by an improved 580 hp diesel
SPECIFICATIONS
Crew: 4
Weight: 22 tons
Engine:580 hp turbocharged diesel
Transmission:Mechanical, planetary Track Metallic
Suspension: Torsion bar
Radio:receive/transmit radio; internal telephone
Dimension: Length: 9.6 m; Height: 3.0 m; Width: 3.2 m
Cruising Range: N/A
Speed: Max swim 28 km/h
Main Gun: 105 mm rifled gun (45 rounds)Gun Elevation/Depression:Gun
Stablisation: 2-Axis Auxiliary Weapon :One coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun;one 12.7 mm air-defence machine gun
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type63a.asp -
Mindef should serious consider !!! Made in China should be cheap rite ??? Then we can made a bit of improvement here and there and then we got our selves a cheapo Ultimate Tank HahaOriginally posted by zenden9:This is the best SAF can get to replace its AMX-13 if it wanted to continue to have a light -weight tank! Plus it can swim across Johor Strait relatively with ease.
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type63a.asp -
My turn now to put in my dua (2) sen....
My impression is that everyone here is contemplating a direct rush through the main highways.......well, unless you catch the defenders by TOTAL surprise, the possibility is that ALL tanks, light or MBT will burn.......
I believe the weak point in Malaysia are the rivers- one can actually use the rivers to cut off the main forces......( for example: one can use a river at Batu Pahat to navigate to Yong Peng as well as up north to Parit Sulong, cutting off Yong Peng from Muar. Or conversely launch an attack from Parit Sulong towards Batu Pahat and Yong Peng)
Imagine the role of amphibious tanks..........but it works both ways, for the enemy will find it hard to hold on to their gains when a counter attack can come by way of rivers.
Just my 0.02 Ringits worth..... -
lol, ringgits indeed. Well yeah what you say does makes sense too. In fact what i believe is that tanks in the context of modern warfare, are pretty much sitting ducks. You have a wide array of weapons that could destroy it . Thats why for many of us, whether it is extra armoured or not, with such a wide array of weapons, it doesn't really make much of a difference. On the other hand, tanks are something that you cannot do away with. Without tanks to support your infantry or spearhead an advance your tanks are good as dead.Originally posted by idwar:My turn now to put in my dua (2) sen....
My impression is that everyone here is contemplating a direct rush through the main highways.......well, unless you catch the defenders by TOTAL surprise, the possibility is that ALL tanks, light or MBT will burn.......
I believe the weak point in Malaysia are the rivers- one can actually use the rivers to cut off the main forces......( for example: one can use a river at Batu Pahat to navigate to Yong Peng as well as up north to Parit Sulong, cutting off Yong Peng from Muar. Or conversely launch an attack from Parit Sulong towards Batu Pahat and Yong Peng)
Imagine the role of amphibious tanks..........but it works both ways, for the enemy will find it hard to hold on to their gains when a counter attack can come by way of rivers.
Just my 0.02 Ringits worth.....
so as idwar have said, tanks are most effective when they have the element of surprise. And to do that you require speed and agility. So in other words, a tank is the modern day calvary. To charge, where the enemy least expect create a spearhead within the enemy lines, and let the infantry follow through. -
Who cares about AMX-13's armour?
We will be unlikely to see battle anytime soon. -
Wow! You guys have a very intensive debate in just one night! Unfortunately, I can't join in. Now to clarify CenturionMBT's doubts. Yes,you are right the armour on the normal SM1 is quite weak,the tank can easily be scrapped by 0.5HMG from our own Ultra M113 or BX.
You are also right when you said that additional armour can be bolted on,but this is only during war time. I have heard that we have a stand-by force of 'brand new' tanks with the additional armour in storage. Never been used much,they are only activated prior to war. I supposed thats where the bulk of the 350 tanks are,but i can't confirm this though. Could be just rumour but sounds realistic to me.
Yes,the SM1 cannot fire on the move. We can only shoot and scoot. We can't directly charged at the enemy who have MBT.This is due to the lack of stabilised turret,small calibre ammo and limited armour.We are taught that if we can't kill a MBT with 2 FS rounds then its time to scoot.
The SM1's role is to act as a fire support platform to the Ultras and BX. We will cover them while they proceed or charge up the objective. We also lead the way in the ABG(Armour Battle Group). As for the reason i am not very sure but i think it is due to the fact that we have the biggest gun and the least no. of crew. So we are more likely to kill the enemy before they can kill us and should we get hit, the max casualties we have is only 3. A relatively unknown function of the SM1 is to provide air cover especially against helicopters(planes are too fast). This is possible due to the odd looking turret which enables it to elevated to a high angle.It is also this turret which help us to shoot behind cover for shoot and scoot due to the low depression angle.Hope that my info is of help. -
Seems to me that our armored forces are mostly of a tank destroyer role than a armored advance.We can kill tanks with our IFVs and APCs.But not with our SM1.Sounds odd right..I'd bet there is a reason.And that reason is found in our policy of "blitzkrieg", backed up by our Longbows.We do not mass and advance, we would probably move in medium sized tank destroyer teams and scatter about in groups.Originally posted by tankee1981:Wow! You guys have a very intensive debate in just one night! Unfortunately, I can't join in. Now to clarify CenturionMBT's doubts. Yes,you are right the armour on the normal SM1 is quite weak,the tank can easily be scrapped by 0.5HMG from our own Ultra M113 or BX.
You are also right when you said that additional armour can be bolted on,but this is only during war time. I have heard that we have a stand-by force of 'brand new' tanks with the additional armour in storage. Never been used much,they are only activated prior to war. I supposed thats where the bulk of the 350 tanks are,but i can't confirm this though. Could be just rumour but sounds realistic to me.
Yes,the SM1 cannot fire on the move. We can only shoot and scoot. We can't directly charged at the enemy who have MBT.This is due to the lack of stabilised turret,small calibre ammo and limited armour.We are taught that if we can't kill a MBT with 2 FS rounds then its time to scoot.
The SM1's role is to act as a fire support platform to the Ultras and BX. We will cover them while they proceed or charge up the objective. We also lead the way in the ABG(Armour Battle Group). As for the reason i am not very sure but i think it is due to the fact that we have the biggest gun and the least no. of crew. So we are more likely to kill the enemy before they can kill us and should we get hit, the max casualties we have is only 3. A relatively unknown function of the SM1 is to provide air cover especially against helicopters(planes are too fast). This is possible due to the odd looking turret which enables it to elevated to a high angle.It is also this turret which help us to shoot behind cover for shoot and scoot due to the low depression angle.Hope that my info is of help. -
x2Originally posted by seancannot:Thot came out in newspaper Mindef alr looking for AMX replacement... Think for the current application b4 Msia MBT come into service, our AMX is good enough and save the tax payer a lot of $$$
The AMX served us well for more than 3 decades.
Only in mid 80s , MAF went on a buying spree with three type of AFVs, the Sibmas, Condor and a small number of Scorpion and Stormer. Before that they were totally incapable of stopping our armoured forces.
Abt the armour protectionof our SM1, I read few months back in Tanknet forum, one who claimed to be working in a defence company has the privileged to witness the first prototype in action, he said that the local SG engineer told him that the SM1 was uparmoured at the front including the turret,in fact he claimed that turret was uparmoured to withstand up to a mid calibre cannon.
The turret was cleverly designed in such a way that it look the same as original , as if no uparmoured was performed.
Wel , take it with pinch of salt. -
Agree that in its day the AMX-13 is the best choice. we got them cheap and at a time of primitive ATGMs and whereby there is no armoured opponents in SEA. the AMX-13 is a significant value add.
As for using Longbows to support, we have 3x CAD and 1x RDF Div. that is a lot of Divisions for 1 SQN of LongBow tosupport!