Malaysia to get delivery PT-91-M Polish Tanks in 2006
-
Originally posted by Matlaysia:
i agree... but i think there is some misconception about the role about the apaches in what we're saying... 20 is enough for us for now because the apaches are not meant to act alone... not unless u use them like the israelis sometimes... to chase palestinian terrorists and blow them up with hellfire... a bit overkill if u ask me
IMHO, I think we might be limited with 20 apaches. If we look at coutries like Israel, Egypt and UAE, they are only armed with about 40 apaches. Hence, if they these countries face armour in such huge numbers and only have 40 of them, malaysian armoured brigades would not be too much for Saf to handle.
judging by the latest ops in iraq, the apaches are used to support ground troops, who have good AT elements as well... ATGMs and MBTs. hence, it complements and enhances AT existing capabilities, not replace it.In addition, if we want to get the MAF's armoured vehicles out of the way, we still have the bion1x 25 with the 25mm bushmaster cannon
at best, that will only disable APCs and IFVs... it won't take out a tank... the best way to take out a tank in a tank vs tank battle, is either to dismount troops to shoot ATGM, or to use another tank.
just for info, people in armour will know that during exercises, bionix are not used to engage an enemy tank. -
"These PT-91 battle tanks with additional features are needed by the army. These are the most modern tanks in the world as they have various sub-systems from European countries and suited to Malaysia," he said after witnessing the signing of the contract for the purchase of the tanks and support vehicles.
Unfortunately the PT-91s are just a polish rehash on the old T-72, tanks which got fragged like crazy in the gulf wars one and two, without being able to even knock out a single enemy tank in return. Chances are, and likely are, that the PT-91 isn't going to be remotely anywhere near the most modern tank in the world unless the PT-91 upgrade provides revolutionary capabilities that are unheard of in the T-72. Given their price tag, anything which is affordable by malaysia, this is probably not the case.
What on earth do they need a NBC system for? Nipah virus? -
Im sure u are saying this without even knowing the systems onboard the PT-91 right?
Think before you say -
hmm....the PT-91 looks good for the reigon but when compared to other MBT's in use today i'm quite shock that it's the lightest.....even lighter then the french and italian tanks!
EDIT:it's even lighter then the M60 and the OLIFANT MK 1B and for mis numbering -
it is PT-91 not PT-90Originally posted by |-|05|:hmm....the PT-90 looks good for the reigon but when compared to other MBT's in use today i'm quite shock that it's the lightest.....even lighter then the french and italian tanks! -
sorry my bad edited nowOriginally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:it is PT-91 not PT-90 -
opps.. sorry for the typo. It should be to disable IFV and APCs, we do not need the AMX-13, we can use the bionex 25 or even the amx-10P firesupport vehicle which has an even larger cannon than the amx-13.Originally posted by CX:at best, that will only disable APCs and IFVs... it won't take out a tank... the best way to take out a tank in a tank vs tank battle, is either to dismount troops to shoot ATGM, or to use another tank.
just for info, people in armour will know that during exercises, bionix are not used to engage an enemy tank. -
I still think the answer is no. MBTs remain unsuitable for use in the regions terrain, with the Russian T-72 series (of which the PT-91 is a member) being the lightest, tipping the scales at 40+ tons.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:I begin to wonder whether singapore needs to buy some MBTs or not
What Singapore needs is a new class of tank, with sufficient firepower to match today's MBTs yet with sufficient mobility to traverse the unique demands of regional terrain. I might be speculating, but something has to give and armour protection would likely suffer(in varying degrees) as a result with the resulting slack in protection be taken up by electronic protection methods.
Thats the very reason why Singapore is going ahead with developing its own light tank. And that, IMO is a good move, even if it utilises mostly COTS technologies/parts as local industries have not reached the standards nor critical mass being present to justify developing it entirely from the ground up. -
Nonsense, I took a detalied look into the PT-91... and compared it with what I know about other MBTs.Originally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:Im sure u are saying this without even knowing the systems onboard the PT-91 right?
Think before you say
It's easly to see that it's way overhyped by the Malaysian media, a large proportion of other modern MBTs, esp. western ones would be superior to it. I rank the PT-91 in the lower 35-40 percentile of MBT quality...
Malaysia as usual, wants to make it seem like they got some metal majic akin to the Abrams on their hand, but the truth is, it's a second-hand POS. And when those tanks start brewing up and immolating malaysian crew in them (a chronic and basic problem with the T-72 design), the "defence" minister will realize that he spoke too soon. The PT-91 is basicallya T-72 wannabe a high tech tank like the wester MBTs by slapping on a few toys, but in the end it's still a T-72 with the basic design flaws of poor crew protection and limited interior space, as well as a lously 125mm gun that's poorly underpowered and hurls sabots that can't even penetrate the side of an Abrams.
On the other hand, the PT-91 is simply a "gadgetized" T-72, type of which was fragged by the hundreds and destroyed utterly by Apache Hellfires and shot up by Abrams tanks, in come cases the sabots even destroying tanks hiding behidn sand berms by blasting through them, or destroyign two tanks by stataying them... yeah, it's a real good tank witha good track record the Malaysians have bought.
The Singaporean tatic? Wait till Malaysia gets lots of these tanks and waste their flaccid ringgit in their misguided attempt to impresse their neighbours with their
"military" "might" before getting something that's not only better, but provides far more bang-for-the-buck.
Sure a PT-91 only costs half that of a western MBT, but then again kill ratios are usually 4:1 or worse in battle (assuming they manage to kill anything at all), so Malaysia actually ends up deficet by half, best case seneriao. -
destroyign two tanks by stataying them
Source? From what i know of Sabot rounds that the metal piece inside of the round can only breakthrough 1 tank's armour and not 2 as the extra blast ability of the round is not there to help push the metal piece through..... -
From post gulf war wreckage study where they found two T-72s knocked out in such away that it could only be taken out with one shot (by the way an Abrams commander reported knocking out two tanks in such a fashion eairler). Apparently the sabot penetrated on a path that allowed it enough mass to exit and still destroy the tank behind. I think it was also reported in Tom Clancy's armored cav.
Usually sabots will break up and join spall within the tank to destroy it, but not in the case of american DU sabots versus T-72.
There are several ways to understand how this is possible:
Firstly, unlike Tungsten, DU, when alloyed correctly is self-sharpening, meaning that when it penetrates the armor and starts to break up, the front nose of the projectile will fail in a constant way that makes sure that is is always pointy, while that of the Tunsten penetrator is blunted and slowed down considerably in armor material. Besides the increased density of DU, this also contributes to the increased preformance of DU penetrators over Tungsten. This means that the DU rod slug that penetrates the armor will still be as sharp as orginal form of the long rod penetrator.
So if the tank armor is weak enough (as in the case of the T-72/PT-91) the DU sabot can penetrate the tank and enter it with sufficent mass and sharpness to actually blast out the back (where the weak armor would be little trouble) and hit the tank behind. The fact that the T-72 behind could still be penetrated from the front by a already demassed and deformed penetrator means two things. Either the tank is really pitifully armoured or it had a weak joint like a turret ring hit, either way, the poor damage control ability of the soviet tank meant that even when any projectiles enter, the tank will almost surely blow up, hence, two kills.
In many other cases, exit wounds from the DU sabots were found in knocked out T-72s, meaning the armor of the tank was weak enough that sabot rod penetrators could still blast through without breaking up much, and with enough velocity to destroy another T-72 behind. Internal damage was mainly done via spall, rather then pieces of the sabot.
The British, using their tungsten penetrators, did some pretty fine work but didn't achieve as much amazing results with the american "silver bullets". -
yea i know about how good DU is and stuff but the 2nd tank's armour being simply penertrated like that really really says alot about the armour.....i mean if thats the case a freaking HEAT round could knock out that tank?!Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:From post gulf war wreckage study where they found two T-72s knocked out in such away that it could only be taken out with one shot (by the way an Abrams commander reported knocking out two tanks in such a fashion eairler). Apparently the sabot penetrated on a path that allowed it enough mass to exit and still destroy the tank behind. I think it was also reported in Tom Clancy's armored cav.
Usually sabots will break up and join spall within the tank to destroy it, but not in the case of american DU sabots versus T-72.
There are several ways to understand how this is possible:
Firstly, unlike Tungsten, DU, when alloyed correctly is self-sharpening, meaning that when it penetrates the armor and starts to break up, the front nose of the projectile will fail in a constant way that makes sure that is is always pointy, while that of the Tunsten penetrator is blunted and slowed down considerably in armor material. Besides the increased density of DU, this also contributes to the increased preformance of DU penetrators over Tungsten. This means that the DU rod slug that penetrates the armor will still be as sharp as orginal form of the long rod penetrator.
So if the tank armor is weak enough (as in the case of the T-72/PT-91) the DU sabot can penetrate the tank and enter it with sufficent mass and sharpness to actually blast out the back (where the weak armor would be little trouble) and hit the tank behind. The fact that the T-72 behind could still be penetrated from the front by a already demassed and deformed penetrator means two things. Either the tank is really pitifully armoured or it had a weak joint like a turret ring hit, either way, the poor damage control ability of the soviet tank meant that even when any projectiles enter, the tank will almost surely blow up, hence, two kills.
In many other cases, exit wounds from the DU sabots were found in knocked out T-72s, meaning the armor of the tank was weak enough that sabot rod penetrators could still blast through without breaking up much, and with enough velocity to destroy another T-72 behind. Internal damage was mainly done via spall, rather then pieces of the sabot.
The British, using their tungsten penetrators, did some pretty fine work but didn't achieve as much amazing results with the american "silver bullets". -
but there are no Abrams/leopard 2/Challenger in SEA.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Nonsense, I took a detalied look into the PT-91... and compared it with what I know about other MBTs.
It's easly to see that it's way overhyped by the Malaysian media, a large proportion of other modern MBTs, esp. western ones would be superior to it. I rank the PT-91 in the lower 35-40 percentile of MBT quality...
Malaysia as usual, wants to make it seem like they got some metal majic akin to the Abrams on their hand, but the truth is, it's a second-hand POS. And when those tanks start brewing up and immolating malaysian crew in them (a chronic and basic problem with the T-72 design), the "defence" minister will realize that he spoke too soon. The PT-91 is basicallya T-72 wannabe a high tech tank like the wester MBTs by slapping on a few toys, but in the end it's still a T-72 with the basic design flaws of poor crew protection and limited interior space, as well as a lously 125mm gun that's poorly underpowered and hurls sabots that can't even penetrate the side of an Abrams.
On the other hand, the PT-91 is simply a "gadgetized" T-72, type of which was fragged by the hundreds and destroyed utterly by Apache Hellfires and shot up by Abrams tanks, in come cases the sabots even destroying tanks hiding behidn sand berms by blasting through them, or destroyign two tanks by stataying them... yeah, it's a real good tank witha good track record the Malaysians have bought.
The Singaporean tatic? Wait till Malaysia gets lots of these tanks and waste their flaccid ringgit in their misguided attempt to impresse their neighbours with their
"military" "might" before getting something that's not only better, but provides far more bang-for-the-buck.
Sure a PT-91 only costs half that of a western MBT, but then again kill ratios are usually 4:1 or worse in battle (assuming they manage to kill anything at all), so Malaysia actually ends up deficet by half, best case seneriao.
Unless there is an open conflict with the US (the only existing superpower)...there will never be a PT91M vs Abrams clash.
With what's available in SEA, i suppose PT91M is more that sufficient to knockout the other 60s era MBT and light tanks that it is likely to meet.
There is an old saying that if you and another guy meet a tiger....you need not have to be the fastest runner in the world to survive....just run faster than the next guy! -
I think they did also use HEAT rounds on T-72s and they penetrated.Originally posted by |-|05|:yea i know about how good DU is and stuff but the 2nd tank's armour being simply penertrated like that really really says alot about the armour.....i mean if thats the case a freaking HEAT round could knock out that tank?!
Bradleys also managed to knock out some T-64s with the 25mm cannons, while most of the rounds were unable to penetrate, the T-64's optics were fouled and the crew concussed inside (thanks to the small internal space) and finally they fired enough rounds to get an entry through the turret ring or other weak areas. While this kind of damage would have just annoyed a western tank, the T-64s brewed up.
-
..how is this possible...did the iraqi had T64 ?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I think they did also use HEAT rounds on T-72s and they penetrated.
Bradleys also managed to knock out some T-64s with the 25mm cannons, while most of the rounds were unable to penetrate, the T-64's optics were fouled and the crew concussed inside (thanks to the small internal space) and finally they fired enough rounds to get an entry through the turret ring or other weak areas. While this kind of damage would have just annoyed a western tank, the T-64s brewed up.
T64 is only used by the russian army....the next tank derived from the T64 is the T80U.
The Ukranians/pakistan had the T80UD.
i think you meant the T62. -
haha yes the T-64's were used by the Iraqis...they bought them 2nd hand from Russia? or hold overs......i know the T-72 tanks were used ONLY by the rep guards!!!And HEAT taking out a T72?! wow.Oh and the M60 is heavier and i dear say better then the T72 and maybe even the equal of the PT-91Originally posted by observe:..how is this possible...did the iraqi had T64 ?
T64 is only used by the russian army....the next tank derived from the T64 is the T80U.
The Ukranians/pakistan had the T80UD.
i think you meant the T62. -
It's not really surprising... the gulf T-72s lacked reactive armor (though it effectiveness is dubious against TOW 2B) and Abrams and Bradleys could take them out with HEAT warheads from 120mm guns and TOW missiles.
To make things worse for the iraqis, a lot of them were firing training sabot rounds against rounds against the americans! The 125mm can't even penetrate using real stuff and they bothered to hurl training rounds at it (usually cost 1/3- 1/10 the cost of the real stuff). Needless to say, they did little good but to attract the attention of the americans, who deftly returned with real stuff...
The PT-91 is a rehash of the T-72, better engine and stuff... but little fundemental has changed... -
If I remember, the T-72 has an estimated 720 mm plus RHA protection on the front. Without ERA, with ERA maybe slightly over 1,000 mm. The non ERA T-72s in the gulf got butchered becos the HEAT rounds used by the ame-meri-kans could easily penetrate that kind of armor...
-
you keep comparing Abrams to T72......Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:If I remember, the T-72 has an estimated 720 mm plus RHA protection on the front. Without ERA, with ERA maybe slightly over 1,000 mm. The non ERA T-72s in the gulf got butchered becos the HEAT rounds used by the ame-meri-kans could easily penetrate that kind of armor...
The russian have a better 'quality' tank to match the Abrams, its called the T80U.
Comparing Abrams vs T80U would be more appropriate.
T72 was the russian response to M60. It's their 'quantity' tank.
It will naturally be in a disadvantage compared to the newer and heavier Abrams. -
i think we're comparing that as well our neighbours bought some and some are getitng nervous about it....like you said it's a quantity tank so having 1 regiment aint really gonna be muchOriginally posted by observe:you keep comparing Abrams to T72......
The russian have a better 'quality' tank to match the Abrams, its called the T80U.
Comparing Abrams vs T80U would be more appropriate.
T72 was the russian response to M60. It's their 'quantity' tank.
It will naturally be in a disadvantage compared to the newer and heavier Abrams. -
Wha piang!! Why they always use palm oil and rubber to barter!? Wha lao ehx!
-
i must've said this three times...
if the PT91 is so damn fantastic, how come the polish military is not buying them from their own defence industries?
how come the polish military is upgrading its armoured vehicles to the leopard?
cheese... -
The first few versions of the T-80 attempted to match the Abrams (M-1, not the later versions) somewhat near in quality while being able to be produced in quantity. It had a gas turbine, laser range finder and stuff like that, along with a very short profile. Unforuntately it was not a great sucess becos it did not provide as much a bang for the buck then the T-72 did. Later versions of the T-80 removed some of the high tech features they attempted to copy from the Abrams and were made to be cheaper, rather then to be quality material. Though armor has been improved somewhat, it still remains in all areas clearly quite inferior to that of the M1A1 onwards series.Originally posted by observe:you keep comparing Abrams to T72......
The russian have a better 'quality' tank to match the Abrams, its called the T80U.
Comparing Abrams vs T80U would be more appropriate.
T72 was the russian response to M60. It's their 'quantity' tank.
It will naturally be in a disadvantage compared to the newer and heavier Abrams.
That's why the russians produced their T-90, which was actually aa souped-up T-72 that allowed them more bang-for-buck then their T-80 series, which they are trying to export. -
To Singapore Macross
One of the things that our dear northern neighbour is good at is flogging off its palm oil stocks. Its a very good way for them to make purchases without hurting their economy too much.
They started this with the russians with the migs not too long ago. Then the French Subs and now the Polish Tanks. Let me not focus on the military side but rather on the economic ones.
Just say 50% of the 400m is in oil palm and textiles. (not rubber) Assume that it is 150m palm oil and 50m textiles. What can Poland do with 150m worth of palm oil? They can either sell it to someone else or use it themselves.
Firstly, it has to be shipped there (if they plan on using it) .. So more contracts for crude palm oil carrier ships. (Malaysia shipping company gains)
Then, what can be made out of palm oil? Plastics, Cosmetics, Shampoo, Detergent. That means, that either some MNC or some Malaysian company (like Lam Soon) will go there to build a factory to make the stuff. Hence, more trade.
Then, once the factory is set up, it will continually need palm oil to function .. more exports for Malaysia. Poland gains by exporting end result like shampoo, detergent, cosmetics and plastics .. those everyday products are needed all over the world so there is plenty of profit to be made by polish companies.
Assuming Poland exports part of that 150m worth of palm oil, whichever country buys it will follow seps 1-3 as well.
Then there is the additional benefit of hitting the American Soybean Oil producers. America is the worlds largest producer and a sworn enemy of Canada's Canola Oil and Malaysia's Palm Oil. This will definately dampen demand for Soybean oil in the world as Poland will try to flood the oil market with as much excess Palm Oil as possible. Malaysia does not mind as supposedly, its their replanting season so its supply is low at the moment. (Malaysia only sells palm oil for weapons on every second or third year I noticed)
Lastly, when there is 150m worth of palm oil sold, that is 150m DIRECTLY into the Malaysian economy (or rather the big palm oil companies like Sime Darby, IOI, etc), and those companies will invest the money and pay the government in tax. So its +150m rather than -150m out of Malaysian budget. Of course, the worst scenario for Malaysia will be that Poland sell all 150m to India, who will use it as they already have the factories.
But remember, Malaysia also have shipped 100s of millions worth of palm oil over to Russia and France, who will be probably either using it (unlikely) or selling/donating it to African countries. The greedy Malaysian companies will still be able to track where the palm oil goes and repeat steps 1-3 to any country that has the palm oil.
So its a very sneaky way of getting the weapons and creating a new market.
For the textiles, Malaysia still has lots of clothing factories in Batu Pahat .. 50m worth of Orlando, Pepper, GQ and ELBA clothes are going to Poland, who can start new markets for the Malaysians. -
Originally posted by laser51088:
correction here. I am train in anti tank weapon and basically, we do not operate alone. we operate in a section of 2 team, each team operate on firing post.
the prob with anti-tank missiles is, if armoured vehicles are travelling in pairs or more, you are screwed big time after u fire your anti-tank missile, the vehicles left will get u, and even if u are facing on vehicle with an anti-tank vehicle, u better pray like nuts u hit it after u fire, cos ur position will be revealed. . .unless you are firing from an APC at another apc of course, but then you'd have to stick ur head out and fire, while the enemy is shooting at you. . .unless he hasn't spotted you yet, which would be unlikely given the built up areas and forest grounds in these region do not allow for very long range of sight. anti-tank missiles will only give infantry sections a CHANCE against AFVs, they should NOT be used as the main weapon against the AFVs, you'll lose an infantry section for every enemy AFV u get, assuming none of your missile miss. . .
In the case if we were to encounter a convoy of tanks, the SOP will be for one team to enagage the tank at the very front and the other team fire at the tank at the rear. In this way, the rest of the tanks in between will be trapped. We will then take out the rest of those in between depending on the situation.
even if we fail to knock all the tanks, we would have hinder their advance. Previously, this would be quite a risky operations with Milan bcause of the limited range(1950m) which put us within the firing range of the tank gun. With Spike, this opraetion will be less risky due to the long range and more importantly, the gunner do not need to expose themselve when firing.