Malaysia Army to purchase modernised T84M.
-
Originally posted by HARIMAU:
No doubt MAF combat engineers capabilities still a bit 'outdated' yet measures has been taken since 2000 to restructure certain elements.
Just curious... what sort of combat engineers do MAF currently have ?
SIze Force : regiment, task force, squadron.... ????
Type of Engineer : Armoured, Field, Bridging, Construction ???
Hence the purchased of two types of tactical bridges (i think 6 in total)- Vickers PLC MLC 90 tactical bridge which could withstand a max load of 70 tonnes
BR90 Vickers Modular Bridging System....hmm... that's interesting. That should really help during monsoon seasons when the rivers start to really swell.
http://www.vickersdefence.co.uk/ProductGallery/ArmouredEngSV/BR90/BR90.htm
and CNIM France pontoon bridges but with lesser max load circa 50 odd tonnes.
Looks like it is capable of ferrying the MBTs around and definitely will prove its' worth during flooding.
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/engineering/cnim/index.html#cnim1
Even the 1st MBT regiments are made of 48 MBT and 14 support vehicles (which include at least 6 AVLB).T 84M should come with the BREM 84 and similar AVLB like the ones mounted on the PT91M.Nos still uncertain though.
Hmmm.... I believe the AVLBs is definitely a must unless the MBTs are going to operate on highways ONLY... If the MBTs ever trying fording in the kind of swampy and muddy rivers that are commonly found in this region, then MAF might have to consider using an accelerated depreciation rate to account for wear and tear.
Also to clarify Shotgun's comment that "Employing MBTs in the jungle has never been the main problem at all. M-60s were once deployed in vietnam, with its predecessor. The main problem has always been that the capability of a main battle tank would be limited in dense vegetation n trees. Often also restricted to certain jungle roads etc."
In vietnam, US Army have mostly employed the MBTs (M60) as firebase ie. in static defence or fire support. due to the limitations imposed by the natural obstacles. Even when they are employed in mobile operations, they are to provide cover fires for the Armored Cavalry (M113 APCs) in small numbers. Never have the tanks operated in a unit larger than a platoon ( I believe that is 4 MBTs each platoon).
There is not enough room for the MBTs to manoveur around and put their capabilities to the best use like what you have rightly pointed out "restricted to certain jungle roads".
If the MAF is going to employing the MBTs as a fire support weapon, then it is really not justifying the purchase. It is cheaper to buy perhaps 4-5 units of portable 120mm mortal and mount them on some mobile plaform either towed or mounted on APCs for the cost of a MBT.
Dear HARIMAU, I hope your minister and generals have make a detailed cost and benefit analysis before deciding on the acquisition of the MBTs. They better not decide to buy the tanks because just to boast the image of the MAF. These "creatures" are paid for by the hard working citizens of Malaysia!!!!
Lastly, any idea what kind of armour vehicle is it on the right the T-84 picture you posted earlier ? Looks like a Armoured Recovery Vehicle ..... also look like the American M9 Armored Combat Earthmover. -
sigh... nobody listens when i post... is what i say really so senseless???
of course its not well thought through! do u see comprehensive evaluation? feasibility study? viability of alternative sources? AFTER SALES support?
now, i'm no expert, but how long does it take for an armed force of repute to plan, evaluate and decide to buy a new weapon platform? this whole issue seems like an off the cuff rush job to me...
not that i'm trying to slam our neighbour, but i seriously do not think that they're choosing the most viable option available to them...
why? because i do not trust the polish defence industry! their armed forces are receiving generous western military aids which are used to fund new arms and systems acquisition from western sources so they can gain a foothold in the eastern europe.
already, Poland is no longer buying large numbers of tanks of the PT series... esp since they took delivery of German Leopard 2s. (they also buy spike ATGMissiles from israel...)
Polish arms industries does not have a BIG overseas presence. Malaysia seems to be its biggest customer of late... and Malaysia is in no position to throw orders of the scale to make a foreign arms manufacturer viable... illogical too...
tech transfer? sure... great... then what? own and build a platform which there's a relatively small market for with little or no prospects of outsourcing for upgrades later when it gets obsolete... cos no one else uses it.
build your own upgrade kit? why not get a platform from a reputable source to begin with? -
The Malaysian purchase of MBTs really puzzle me quite a bit. Since heavy tanks are deemed unsuitable for jungle operations. (I deem light tanks unsuitable too.) As much as I often argue in favour of MBTs, I have to admit that Peninsular Malaysia is not exactly "tank terrain." Limited axis of armoured advance can be quite disadvantageous. To me, it seems like a case of, "they have we must also have... have more better still." Why? Its good for the morale, and they hope to find limited use for these behemoths.
Now of course. I will state my support for MBTs despite the terrain disadvantages. MBTs have "limited" use. Which means you can't use them everywhere in our region.... but on occassions where we CAN use them... they will be very useful. Overwhelming firepower. Unstoppable* and capable of tipping engagements to our favour.
Honestly, I shoot up so many "armored targets" on simulations, that I develop a respect for people willing to get into steel coffins to do their job. Any time, from anywhere, death will come on swift wings and they won't even know it. However, it never ceases to amaze me when the tanks continue to roll despite taking successive hits from Mavericks.
* Terms n conditions apply. -
yes they kept moving but are they still operate properly? They are being hammered by the shockwaves. Human are always Human always has weak points waiting to be exploited.Originally posted by Shotgun:The Malaysian purchase of MBTs really puzzle me quite a bit. Since heavy tanks are deemed unsuitable for jungle operations. (I deem light tanks unsuitable too.) As much as I often argue in favour of MBTs, I have to admit that Peninsular Malaysia is not exactly "tank terrain." Limited axis of armoured advance can be quite disadvantageous. To me, it seems like a case of, "they have we must also have... have more better still." Why? Its good for the morale, and they hope to find limited use for these behemoths.
Now of course. I will state my support for MBTs despite the terrain disadvantages. MBTs have "limited" use. Which means you can't use them everywhere in our region.... but on occassions where we CAN use them... they will be very useful. Overwhelming firepower. Unstoppable* and capable of tipping engagements to our favour.
Honestly, I shoot up so many "armored targets" on simulations, that I develop a respect for people willing to get into steel coffins to do their job. Any time, from anywhere, death will come on swift wings and they won't even know it. However, it never ceases to amaze me when the tanks continue to roll despite taking successive hits from Mavericks.
* Terms n conditions apply. -
True, some will stop moving. Some may not be able to engage in combat anymore. I'm not saying that tanks are invincible... but heck, at least the crew survives. And the vehicle maybe salvagable. If it were just a light tank... guarantee the vehicle will blow like old' faithful.
-
Not if it's the AGS... but then again, the SM1s are a far cry from one...
-
malaysia's purchase of mbts must be seen in the context of maf's need to look good to their public. mbts have never really proved themselves in jungle terrain but the malaysians want it anyway as it has that oomph feel on parades every 31 august. political song and dance routine is jazzed up with showy military hardware.
-
What platform will the "Vickers PLC MLC 90 tactical bridge" be launched from ?
The T84 or th PT-91 or from a UK Centurion Tank ?
What a wierd array of tanks that will certainly be marvellous for the Logistics Service to handle ?
Manuals in Polish-English for the T84, Ukranian-English for the PT-91, and Superior English if the Centurion is used to launch the Vicker's Tactical Bridge.
Their military hardware expert is their Prime Minister, who will personally view and assess the performance of each major hardware purchase, before a final decision is made upon his personal review of the hardware in action. -
Hey, at least their needless overspending on such systems gives us compelling reasons to get useful weapons systems like the Longbow to pop them with...
-
Don't even need those Longbows to start launching Hellfires...
The Longbow just hide behind some trees, peep over with their radom.... and just paint the tanks.
Meanwhile 40kms away, Special Loads are being loaded into the Fh2000s.
Couple of seconds later, special packages of arty-delivered anti armor munitions will rain on them, homing onto the Longbow's radar reflections. -
Not until ST perfected millimeter wave technology first (which shouldn't be that difficult). ST should also look at BAe Merlin 81mm millimeter wave mortar rounds as well as Bofor BONUS 155mm rounds. Secondly, US might not be too keen to allow Singapore to integrate Longbow radar with an indigenous weapon/munition. They will have to reveal the millimeter wave frequencies and perhaps any frequency-encoding algorithm to Singapore for such a scenario.Originally posted by Shotgun:Don't even need those Longbows to start launching Hellfires...
The Longbow just hide behind some trees, peep over with their radom.... and just paint the tanks.
Meanwhile 40kms away, Special Loads are being loaded into the Fh2000s.
Couple of seconds later, special packages of arty-delivered anti armor munitions will rain on them, homing onto the Longbow's radar reflections. -
What makes you think thats not already done?
Anyway, even if not. =D Just having the Longbow there to spot the column in a kill zone is quite devastating too. Maybe might have to fire more packages at them. -
Why longbows? Use UAVs to spot them!
-
Wait... they do use UAVs to spot for artty sometimes...
-
Of course they can... I was just considering of using special AT munitions that uses millimeter wave radar to guide. Thats why I thought of using Longbows. UAVs can do the same thing too, they got longer loiter time and all. Just don't know if they UAVs we have can paint them with radar or not.
-
Nah, ST should develop something like the copperhead... but I doubt so, because we'll never face MBTs in threatening enough numbers for some time to justify overloading on anti tank munitions. We seem pretty content with Longbows for standoff anti armour support and ATGMs for direct antitank fire...
-
Wah lau, copperhead is late 60's till early 70's AT missile and you waste a 155mm Howitzer to fire it hor. The current SPIKE series AT missile (co developed by ST) is more than capable to handle the current MBT threats. Come mon pal, we do not have so much "money" to slash on assorted toys like our good neighbours, so have to select the best and most cost effective one available in the marketOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Nah, ST should develop something like the copperhead... but I doubt so, because we'll never face MBTs in threatening enough numbers for some time to justify overloading on anti tank munitions. We seem pretty content with Longbows for standoff anti armour support and ATGMs for direct antitank fire...
-
These sort of new generation power assisted modular construction bridge require a section of man to construct a bridge within 30mins time. This is quick in contrast to the usual manual contruct bridge, which require a platoon of man 3hrs to construct a similar 24m span tactical bridge.
It require a launch vehicle (usually a converted 3 tonner) to extend the boom beams to the other side of the river bank, use an onboard crane to unload the bridge sections (from other pallet trucks) on the beam and push the completed sections till the bridge is completed.Originally posted by Atobe:What platform will the "Vickers PLC MLC 90 tactical bridge" be launched from ?
The T84 or th PT-91 or from a UK Centurion Tank ?
What a wierd array of tanks that will certainly be marvellous for the Logistics Service to handle ?
Manuals in Polish-English for the T84, Ukranian-English for the PT-91, and Superior English if the Centurion is used to launch the Vicker's Tactical Bridge.
Their military hardware expert is their Prime Minister, who will personally view and assess the performance of each major hardware purchase, before a final decision is made upon his personal review of the hardware in action. -
Interesting... how many hellfires do you think it can take?
-
1 to disable and perhaps kill. 2 will confirm kill.
Worse come to worse, get our falcons to fly in with some nice dumb iron bombs to shack them. Mk-82s work just fine. -
Maybe can buy some Oplot MBT (further improvement of the T-84) to play play hor
Can check specs at
http://www.morozov.com.ua -
maybe can use the LGB or even the bunker buster.... i think its a one hit kill.....
-
During the opening days of the Yom Kippur War, the Egyptian Ground Forces was able to conduct combined arms offensive to gain a psychological shock advantage over the Israelis, and overwhelm the highly rated Israeli armoured corp.
The Egyptians launched an attack with armour and armoured infantry; and with a majority of the dismounted armoured infantry being equipped with anti-tank guided missiles.
The dismounted armoured infantry with anti-tank guided missiles, became a force multiplier to neutralise the effectiveness of armoured reaction manoevres conducted by the Israeli armoured corp.
The Israeli Air Force was neutralised and prevented from giving effective air support to counter attack the Egyptian surprised attack at the Suez-Sinai Front, as the Egyptian had moved forward their umbrella of anit-aircraft missile batteries.
It was only after a week of costly battles that the Egyptian attack was brought to a stalemate.
To break the impasse, the Israeli made a daring and brilliant plan to cross the Suez Canal from the southern end, and move north towards Alexandra and the Egyptian Capital of Cairo, which effectively cut off all logistic life lines to the Egyptian Armies that were trapped in the Sinai.
This prove that tanks can be neutralized by well trained infantry equipped with anti-tank guided missiles, and the freedom to manoevres by armour vehicles can be restricted under such circumstances.
Unlike the wide open terrain of the European theatre that is suited for armoured blitzkrieg, the South-east Asian jungle terrain will make the lines of manoevre to be quite predictable, and killing zones can be effectively pre-planned. -
Still, the Israel armour did a critical job in holding off the Arabs... they held off like what? A couple of thousand tanks with only 170 MBTs...
-
After the war, military researchers learnt that the impasse was not due entirely to the Israeli armoured counter-attack efforts; but more due to the Egyptian reluctance to move forward to extend their envelope of success, as their umbrella of Anti-Aircraft Network could not be extended any further.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Still, the Israel armour did a critical job in holding off the Arabs... they held off like what? A couple of thousand tanks with only 170 MBTs...
The Egyptian also had a limited objective of making an impact to achieve an extended beach head into Israeli occupied Sinai, hold the ground, battle to a stalemate, and sue for peace.
To a large extent, the Egyptian had achieved their set goals in the Yom Kippur War, as Israel returned the entire Sinai Peninsula to the Egyptians.