AMX-13
-
I heard the RMAF obtain some MANPAD from China. How will it threaten our Apache?Originally posted by spencer99: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! -
Experiences in Somalia and Iraq seems to indicate the helicopters are vulnerable to determined resistance.Originally posted by zenden9:I heard the RMAF obtain some MANPAD from China. How will it threaten our Apache? -
Either we get more LongBows or thay are not an organic divisional asset, but a mobile force to be called on to soften the enemy in a first strike.Originally posted by spencer99: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! -
anti aircraft using the sm1? i think i rather have a manpad . . . .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.
hmm so if that is what you say, we can have things like reactive armour or bolt on applique armour on it.
Looks kinda odd though. -
Our AMX13 top road speed is 60km/h and 40km/h cross country.
For comparison's sake a big and well-armoured MBT like the Abrams, moves at around 70km/h on the road and 48km/h cross country. So speed is not exclusive to small-sized tanks.
And what's more, a modern MBT can shoot at you while moving. That's agiilty.
Maybe the AMX13 can perform somersaults around the M1 or tap dance in the rubber plantations, but its armament can't definitely stop an enemy MBT, and its armour can't even protect itself from .5 HMG bullets.
And the armour protection on most modern MBTs, though not perfect, is better than what you would find on any light tanks, modern or otherwise.
In the old days a small tank can hide in the tree line and ambush approaching enemy forces. But these days enemy MBTs all have some kind of thermal imaging device and can find you even at night. So armour protection is the only way to go. Being small and hiding is passe.
So if the AMX13 goes into battle, they stand a good chance of becoming tin coffins. They are definitely not meant for this era.
If light tanks are the way to go, well then get something well-armed and armoured. But I say this is not so ideal as a small size usually restricts you in terms of armament and armour protection. -
and advances in computer targeting technologyOriginally posted by tvdog:And what's more, a modern MBT can shoot at you while moving. That's agiilty.
imo...the leclerc is a good choice...i think its one of the lightest mbt available rite?..at 38000kg
and i think it has an autoloader too rite?...so lesser tankies needed to operate it -
tvdog would you mind restating ur erm...stand? because i'm quite lost as to where you are in all this now....thxOriginally posted by tvdog:Our AMX13 top road speed is 60km/h and 40km/h cross country.
For comparison's sake a big and well-armoured MBT like the Abrams, moves at around 70km/h on the road and 48km/h cross country. So speed is not exclusive to small-sized tanks.
And what's more, a modern MBT can shoot at you while moving. That's agiilty.
Maybe the AMX13 can perform somersaults around the M1 or tap dance in the rubber plantations, but its armament can't definitely stop an enemy MBT, and its armour can't even protect itself from .5 HMG bullets.
And the armour protection on most modern MBTs, though not perfect, is better than what you would find on any light tanks, modern or otherwise.
In the old days a small tank can hide in the tree line and ambush approaching enemy forces. But these days enemy MBTs all have some kind of thermal imaging device and can find you even at night. So armour protection is the only way to go. Being small and hiding is passe.
So if the AMX13 goes into battle, they stand a good chance of becoming tin coffins. They are definitely not meant for this era.
If light tanks are the way to go, well then get something well-armed and armoured. But I say this is not so ideal as a small size usually restricts you in terms of armament and armour protection.
Anyway MINDEF already looking for a new light tank and we already have MBT's though not officially disclosed...but we have them..it's no big secret -
Attack helicopters are lethal against tanks. But they are damn expensive and vulnerable to being shot down.
In the link I posted earlier about Israel's encounter with Syria's French-made Gazelle helicopters, the Israeli tanks suffered a heavy toll but one or two tanks managed to shoot down the Gazelle with their main gun.
It is a lucky shot but entirely possible. And when the Israeli finally brought in Air Defence in the form of Vulcan armed M113 the Gazelle attacks became less. -
SPECIFICATIONS - LECLERC MAIN BATTLE TANK, FRANCEOriginally posted by Rockhound:and advances in computer targeting technology
imo...the leclerc is a good choice...i think its one of the lightest mbt available rite?..at 38000kg
and i think it has an autoloader too rite?...so lesser tankies needed to operate it
Crew 3 (commander, driver, gunner)
Gun
main gun 120 mm, 52 calibre
Rounds apfsds and HEAT
Engagement 6 targets in just over 30 seconds
muzzle velocity (APFSDS) 1,790 m/sec
maximum range 3000 km
Dimensions
length hull 6.9 metres
overall length 9.9 metres
Width 3.7 metres
Height 2.5 metres
combat weight 56 tonnes
Powerpack
sacm V8X-1500 diesel 1,500 horsepower
sesm esm 500 automatic transmission 5 forward, 2 reverse gears
turbomeca TM-307b auxiliary power unit
Performance
road speed 70 km/hour
cross country speed 50 km/hour
reverse speed more than 35 km/hour
unrefuelled range more than 500 km
Power-to-weight ratio 27 hp/t
Acceleration 0 - 32 km/h in less than 6 sec
No major countries produce light or medium tank anymore! -
That happens sometimes... my sympathies.Originally posted by |-|05|:because i'm quite lost ... -
Originally posted by zenden9:
lightest of all the others...u want creature comfort like air conditioning...can get challenger 2...hehehehehe
SPECIFICATIONS - LECLERC MAIN BATTLE TANK, FRANCE
Crew 3 (commander, driver, gunner)
Gun
main gun 120 mm, 52 calibre
Rounds apfsds and HEAT
Engagement 6 targets in just over 30 seconds
muzzle velocity (APFSDS) 1,790 m/sec
maximum range 3000 km
Dimensions
length hull 6.9 metres
overall length 9.9 metres
Width 3.7 metres
Height 2.5 metres
combat weight [b]56 tonnes
Powerpack
sacm V8X-1500 diesel 1,500 horsepower
sesm esm 500 automatic transmission 5 forward, 2 reverse gears
turbomeca TM-307b auxiliary power unit
Performance
road speed 70 km/hour
cross country speed 50 km/hour
reverse speed more than 35 km/hour
unrefuelled range more than 500 km
Power-to-weight ratio 27 hp/t
Acceleration 0 - 32 km/h in less than 6 sec
No major countries produce light or medium tank anymore![/b] -
is any one here a tankee be it a man, sgt or pc ??
-
try getting asking an m1 crew to bash through a jungle. They will give you a finger straight away.Originally posted by tvdog:Our AMX13 top road speed is 60km/h and 40km/h cross country.
For comparison's sake a big and well-armoured MBT like the Abrams, moves at around 70km/h on the road and 48km/h cross country. So speed is not exclusive to small-sized tanks.
And what's more, a modern MBT can shoot at you while moving. That's agiilty.
Maybe the AMX13 can perform somersaults around the M1 or tap dance in the rubber plantations, but its armament can't definitely stop an enemy MBT, and its armour can't even protect itself from .5 HMG bullets.
And the armour protection on most modern MBTs, though not perfect, is better than what you would find on any light tanks, modern or otherwise.
In the old days a small tank can hide in the tree line and ambush approaching enemy forces. But these days enemy MBTs all have some kind of thermal imaging device and can find you even at night. So armour protection is the only way to go. Being small and hiding is passe.
So if the AMX13 goes into battle, they stand a good chance of becoming tin coffins. They are definitely not meant for this era.
If light tanks are the way to go, well then get something well-armed and armoured. But I say this is not so ideal as a small size usually restricts you in terms of armament and armour protection. -
I did not ask anyone to bash through the jungle so you can have that finger, and I also give you the finger at the same time.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:try getting asking an m1 crew to bash through a jungle. They will give you a finger straight away.
-
lol indeed. You can keep that finger. It is too precious for me to recieve it.Originally posted by tvdog:I did not ask anyone to bash through the jungle so you can have that finger, and I also give you the finger at the same time. -
I think tankee was a tankee. And gary1910 seems to know quite bit about SAF armour.Originally posted by dragonwolf882000:is any one here a tankee be it a man, sgt or pc ??
My late older brother, bless him, was a vehicle commander of an M113 when I was still in primary school. He was damn proud of his black beret and would tell me a lot about tanks so at a young age I was very interested in armour.
But I ended up in Infantry... pui chow nua.
At Sungei Gedong, us poor infantry types would have to suffer the smoke and dust produced by the armoured guys when we have the misfortune of sharing the training area. Even a M113 is very intimidating, they are loud, the ground shakes when they speed past, and the .5 gun is very intimidating even when firing blanks.
We were walking along a "road" when an M113 sped past, skid to a halt and the gunner started blasting with the .5 HMG. Very loud and deep, and the huge empty shell casings fell onto the top of the vehicle making a cling clang sound. Very impressive.
I'd hate to be in a trench facing an enemy armour attack. Would be a very humbling experience. -
I have friends serving as tankees ( NSmen ). Want to know more about our MBT? We got many of them back homeOriginally posted by |-|05|:tvdog would you mind restating ur erm...stand? because i'm quite lost as to where you are in all this now....thx
Anyway MINDEF already looking for a new light tank and we already have MBT's though not officially disclosed...but we have them..it's no big secret
confirm ! -
Dun say so much, this is a public forum.Originally posted by Manager433:I have friends serving as tankees ( NSmen ). Want to know more about our MBT? We got many of them back home confirm ! 
To me M113 is considered very quiet if you compare it with 750hp MBT!!!
Those who have seen the M60AVLB or CEV should know how it roar!!! -
It's unsubstantiated rumours and any truth will never be confirmed.Originally posted by Manager433:I have friends serving as tankees ( NSmen ). Want to know more about our MBT? We got many of them back home confirm ! -
LazerLordz is saying that in his White House spokesperson voiceOriginally posted by LazerLordz:It's unsubstantiated rumours and any truth will never be confirmed. -
There is another very important consideration here -- logistics. The rule of thumb is that the logistical effort needed to support a platform increases with the cube of its weight. This means that a tank that is twice as heavy needs eight times the effort to support.
Why is this so? A heavy platform needs more fuel and heavier spare parts, which needs to be transported in more log vehicles, which then need more fuel and spare parts, which need to be transported in more log vehicles, which... You get the idea. Add to this the fact that heavy vehicles need heavier recovery and repair vehicles, and that heavier vehicles generally fatigue and break down more easily and you see the problem. While we can afford heavy armor, we cannot afford the logistics to support them and the vulnerability they represent.
Also, don't forget cost. We might be the best funded military in SEA, but the SAF is not a bottomless pit of money, especially with the post-boom economy. -
We might end up needing a few Maintenance Brigades.Originally posted by dkhoo:There is another very important consideration here -- logistics. The rule of thumb is that the logistical effort needed to support a platform increases with the cube of its weight. This means that a tank that is twice as heavy needs eight times the effort to support.
Why is this so? A heavy platform needs more fuel and heavier spare parts, which needs to be transported in more log vehicles, which then need more fuel and spare parts, which need to be transported in more log vehicles, which... You get the idea. Add to this the fact that heavy vehicles need heavier recovery and repair vehicles, and that heavier vehicles generally fatigue and break down more easily and you see the problem. While we can afford heavy armor, we cannot afford the logistics to support them and the vulnerability they represent.
Also, don't forget cost. We might be the best funded military in SEA, but the SAF is not a bottomless pit of money, especially with the post-boom economy. -
But we already have 100 very heavy Centurion MBTs - or do we not?Originally posted by dkhoo:There is another very important consideration here -- logistics. The rule of thumb is that the logistical effort needed to support a platform increases with the cube of its weight. This means that a tank that is twice as heavy needs eight times the effort to support.
Why is this so? A heavy platform needs more fuel and heavier spare parts, which needs to be transported in more log vehicles, which then need more fuel and spare parts, which need to be transported in more log vehicles, which... You get the idea. Add to this the fact that heavy vehicles need heavier recovery and repair vehicles, and that heavier vehicles generally fatigue and break down more easily and you see the problem. While we can afford heavy armor, we cannot afford the logistics to support them and the vulnerability they represent.
Also, don't forget cost. We might be the best funded military in SEA, but the SAF is not a bottomless pit of money, especially with the post-boom economy.
Will Whitehouse spokesperson care to comment? -
MBTs are good...but I still have my doubts as to their deployment in the current ORBAT. I still think we should invest in research in light tanks. The AMX-13SM1 is overdue for replacement...that's for sure. The question is whether we choose to emulate our neighbours in adopting MBTs, or stick to employing light tanks?
Dun forget, we still have our LSVs as well...a competent LSV company can conduct "shoot and scoot" attacks on armoured vehicles, so long as they can maintain the element of surprise... -
To me, I've heard about us having MBTs, especially in Tim Huxley's book.Whether I can officially confirm, I do not know.Originally posted by tvdog:But we already have 100 very heavy Centurion MBTs - or do we not?
Will Whitehouse spokesperson care to comment?