Malaysia to get delivery PT-91-M Polish Tanks in 2006
-
This is quite a simplistic way of putting it isn't it? There a couple of factors required for this tactics to work:Originally posted by SPIKER: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.
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.
1. The terrain in which to trap the column of vehicles must be favourable to the attacker. The column must be travelling in a single file on a road or path (well prepared or not) and the column cannot break out of the path because of the terrain. This happens on either a hilly terrain and not flat terrains found in desert or plains.
2. On flatter terrain where the vehicles can move either side, anti-tank and personal mines were well planted in advanced to stop them from escaping. The mines will momentarily halt the escape, and create sufficient time for the anti-tank teams to reload and fire again.
3. Assuming that the first-round hits were acurrate and the enemies didn't spot the position where the missiles were fire from. If they did spot, they could easily return fire with their main guns, missiles or even mortars. Subsequent attacks are surely going to draw their attention towards the firer positions. Thus, it is necessary to do a hit and run.
4. Must hit the "heaviest" or "most powerful" onces first to minimised retaliatory fire. If kills are not possible or achived, ensure they are at least disabled - mobility and/or vision kill.
5. Good pre-plan escape routes or back ups to finish them off. Requires good judgement.
Anyway, just my 2 cents... -
Poland is part of NATO and they need a tank that is compatible with other tanks/weapons system used by their NATO partners.Originally posted by CX: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... -
I think if it comes to that, we will find that most of the armour vehicle kills will come from the humble 84mm firing at the sides/rear at close range....
And the Milan/Spike will be used mainly against stationary hardened targets....ref Goose Green....
And don't forget that vehicles, espically tracked vehicles, do not need to operate on tracks or move in column... -
nah they wont waste money by using a $100,000 spike on a hard target.....most prob use the LAW which is something like $3,000 a tube??
-
Correction, $64 dollars a throwaway tube, a real bargain...
I think the Armbrust cost more though... -
Originally posted by Joe Black:
What i have quoted is a general rule of engagement. Of course the situation may not really allow us to do so. Bear in mind that they are conducting armour ops in a close terrain and we are also conduct anti tank ops in the same terrain. The terrain and vegetatation may offer them some of the best form of protection from ATGM fire and yet it may also hinder their movement. This rule also applies to ATGM team.
What we have to our advantage is the element of surprise. Upon the first hit, it will take the enemy tanks a few seconds to retain their composure and another few second to spot where we are(quite unlikely to spot us if we are using SPIKE) and another few seconds to load their round and fire. During this time, depending on the situation we may decide to engage the rest of the enemy tank or to make a hasty evacuation.
The greatest enemy to ATGM is not the tank, rather it the helicopter gunship escorting the tank convoy. I would really think twice about engaging the tank if this is the case cause the helicopter can easily spot the trajectory of the missile flight to determine our location. It will be difficult to run away from the gunship. -
To SingaporeTyrannosaur :
$64 for a LAW?? You sure it's tt cheap, tot its in the range of $1000.
To |-|05| :
$100,000 for a spike?? figure seems abit too high, maybe a zero too many... The missile alone does not cos tt much, if i am not wrong. But if u r talking about the entire system, maybe...
To SPIKER:
the scenario u qoute is a very ideal situation for a "tabletop" planning and engagement. if such a situation occurs, it must have been a superduper lucky day for u...
My views:
The Spike has an distinctive advantage and that's its capability of Non LOS function, i.e. taking out over the hill targets. Another advantage is that due to its abilities to be controlled by an operator, it could approach its target from top down.
Terrian and vegetation should not hinder its usage by much...
Its' not the best system and does has its disadvantages, which i do not wish to say more....
I believe our forces has some of the best equipments within SEA. But our forces' training have yet to achieve a standard/ level that will allow them to use these equipments to their fullest potential...
It woul be good to see our forces carry out a "joint" exercise, i.e. armour, infantry, guards, so that they could appreciate each other's role and to get a more "real" operations -
exactly my point! if the stupid piece of hardware is so damn fantastic, then why isn't it up to the NATO military standard!??? it claims to have french firing systems, NBC protection and all that jazz, but when it comes to the crunch, the Poles still can't use it for their own armed forces! says a lot doesn't it...Originally posted by spencer99:Poland is part of NATO and they need a tank that is compatible with other tanks/weapons system used by their NATO partners. -
Originally posted by SCAR:
I do not really know how effective is ATGM in this part of the world where the terrain is close and seldom u can get 4 km LOS. Most of the time during training, the range are obstructed by the vegetation. Milan and Spike would require a minimum range of 400 and 200m respectively. I believe LAW still have a very important role to play here dispite it shorter range.
To SPIKER:
the scenario u qoute is a very ideal situation for a "tabletop" planning and engagement. if such a situation occurs, it must have been a superduper lucky day for u...
My views:
The Spike has an distinctive advantage and that's its capability of Non LOS function, i.e. taking out over the hill targets. Another advantage is that due to its abilities to be controlled by an operator, it could approach its target from top down.
Terrian and vegetation should not hinder its usage by much...
Its' not the best system and does has its disadvantages, which i do not wish to say more.... -
$100,000 for a spike?? figure seems abit too high, maybe a zero too many... The missile alone does not cos tt much, if i am not wrong. But if u r talking about the entire system, maybe...
Maybe too many zero's......the spike has at least 2 guidence system and those do not come cheap....the rocket without the guidence system is most prob gonna cost around $300?throw in about $20,000 per guidence system and around $5,000 for the warhead?That makes it at least $45,000 per rocket....about half but still expensive enough....On a note i believe the firing system cost about the same as the rocket but it reusable so it would not be a problem -
To Singapore Macross
ok thanks
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 -
to |-|05| : sorry, my mistake on the zeros, your figures are quite correct after some checks.
-
haah dun worryOriginally posted by SCAR:to |-|05| : sorry, my mistake on the zeros, your figures are quite correct after some checks. -
sgtyranosaur, u forgot that the sabot round is travelling in access of twice the speed of sound, and the air directly behind the penetrator is a vacuum. Upon breaking through the armor of the vehicle as u described, the amount of friction heats up the round. The round literally sucks up the air from the inside of the tank as it enters, then as the air rushes in with enormous pressure as well as getting ignited by the super hot sabot round itself. Its like blowing a balloon til it bursts, with a touch of igniting expanding gasses. It is entirely possible to punch thru 2 tanks, if it punches thru a weak area in the first tank.
SPIKER, I thought you guys would run like hell after engaging the first and the last vehicle? Maybe y'all might shoot one or two more, but I am sure u all will still run and leave the job to artillery. =D -
I'm not sure those forces, if present at all in the dymanics of a sabot flight, will be significant in the destruction of the AFV. While the sonic shock cone would be there, I doubt overpressures generated (if at all) within the AFV by the entry of a sabot would be sufficent to cause serious damage, let alone spontaneously ignite. Overpressure from a HEAT jet, maybe, that thing hits at 2,500,000 psi.Originally posted by Shotgun:sgtyranosaur, u forgot that the sabot round is travelling in access of twice the speed of sound, and the air directly behind the penetrator is a vacuum. Upon breaking through the armor of the vehicle as u described, the amount of friction heats up the round. The round literally sucks up the air from the inside of the tank as it enters, then as the air rushes in with enormous pressure as well as getting ignited by the super hot sabot round itself. Its like blowing a balloon til it bursts,
Case in point, there have been AFV (Bradelys actually) that have suffered through and and through sabot hits and did not pop like a ballon, neither were the crew members (who happened to be inside) seriously injured safe for wounds from spall. I didn't see any report of overpressure injuries. -
[quote]Originally posted by Shotgun:
[
SPIKER, I thought you guys would run like hell after engaging the first and the last vehicle? Maybe y'all might shoot one or two more, but I am sure u all will still run and leave the job to artillery. =D[quote]
Not really, it depend on the situation. There are a number of ways which the rest of the enemy tank can counter us. Either shoot at our position with their guns, called for arty, air-support. But all this measure can only be done provided our position are compromise and with SPIKE, it never going to be that easy for them to spot us.
Still helicopter gunship present the greatest threat to us. -
Here's the technical specs as available on Globalsecurity.org:
Polish industry produced the T-72M1Z and Wilk upgrades and has gone on to build the PT-91 Twardy development. This has now entered service. PT-91 and its version T-72M1Z MBTs were derived from T-72 MBT through modernization, replacing and upgrading of its systems. They were designed to be a highly reliable systems having superior firepower, improved crew protection and impressive mobility. They still keep outstanding, optimally small silhouette to minimize the ballistic surface. The design concept creates very wide modernization field, as it can be done with everyone T-72 family MBT pratcically, almost without major changes in its shell.
In April 1951 was erected J. Stalin Mechanical Factory in Labedy (Regulation No.97 of Heavy Industry Minister) abbreviated later as ZMIS, with main designation to produce heavy tracked vehicles such as tanks, agricultural and artillery tractors, excavators and cranes. The name of the factory and sometimes structure was a matter of change several times within the space of these years. In 1956 it was shortened to Mechanical Factory "Labedy" in Labedy, and after joining the Labedy to Gliwice of course appeared name in Gliwice. In the years from 1951 to 1956 were produced tanks of T-34 type, later T-54 type that were produced until 1964 and next, after upgrading, tanks of T-55A type until 1969. In this last period simultaneously started production of tanks of T-55 and T-55A type, which were produced until 1979. On the base of this tank new modification was constructed with new designation as Recovery Vehicle WZT-1 and WZT-2 and Engineering Vehicle in the Experimental Production Unit, later the Research and Development Centre of Mechanical Systems (OBRUM) in Gliwice. Regulation No.77 of Machine Industry Minister from December in 1975 established, on the basis of our Factory, Mechanical Equipment Industrial Complex "Bumar - Labedy" in Gliwice.
From the year 1980 Bumar produce main battle tank T-72, T-72M1 and its variations: commander tank T-72M1K and Recovery Vehicle WZT-3 and Mine Clearing Vehicle. The Gulf War revealed some defects of this tank never the less it is treated as a tank at the turn II and III generation of tanks. So it was upgraded using domestic research and development resources such as OBRUM (Research and Development Centre of Mechanical Systems), OPTA, WITU (Military Institute of Armament), WITPiS (Military Institute of Armoured and Truck Vehicles) and constructed type PT-91 (Hard). Now it doesn't correspond fully to III generation of tanks but significantly approached to this. Bumar has produced this tank since 1993.
In September 1996 U.S. special Balkan envoy James W. Pardew Jr. visited Warsaw on 6 September to determine what Poland can do to help the "Train and Equip" program aimed at strengthening Bosnia's Moslem-Croat Federation military forces, Polish media reported. Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Robert Mroziewicz said Poland would like to participate in the "Train and Equip" program "at the lowest possible level." The U.S. asked Poland to sell T 72 tanks to be financed by a NATO fund; however, Poland declined in line with the policy of many EU states of equal distance from all sides in the Bosnian conflict. The U.S. will sell M60A tanks.
In March 2002 Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir bin Mohamad declared that his country will buy modernised PT-91 Twardy tanks. The contract may be worth approximately 250-300 million dollars depending on the equipment Malaysia would buy together with the tanks. Poland proposed a several dozen vehicles of technical support. The Malaysian PM watched Polish tanks at the training grounds in Wesola near Warsaw.
To keep the required horsepower and speed, PT-91 and T-72M1Z are equipped with turbocharged 850 hp diesel engine. With upgraded transmission they can attain a maximum road speed of 60 km/h. However, for low speed maneuvering, the low gear provides a continuous speed up to 7 km/h. They still enjoy excellent cross country ability. Their design creates the fording ability of water obstacles up to 5 meters depth using fording kit, however the water obstacle of 1,2 meters depth can be crossed without any preparation.
The PT-91 MBT is equpped with the Fire Control System consisting of Gunner Station. It basis on modernized TPDK-1 sight for day channel and optionally passive PCN-A sight or thermal imagine sight, which create night fighting capability. The fire solutions are calculated by the ballistic, digital computer which processes mixed set of information generated by set of sensors and input manually by the gunner.
The T-72M1Z MBT dual axis stabilized Fire Control System, with both Gunner and Commander stations is equipped with day and night vision capabilities, which, in conjunction with electro-hydraulic gun stabilization system, makes it capable of acquiring a target accurately within a minimum time Gunner Station consists of 2 axis stabilized sight platform with thermal imaging and daylight visual imaging subsystems, laser range finder which permits the gunner to detect, identify, acquire and track a target during day and night combat conditions.
Commander Station consists of panoramic sight mounted on the turred roof which provides day vision and night imaging through 2 axis stabilized head mirror assembly with 3600 panoramic viewing independent of turret orientation. Combined with the GS, the CS provides the hunter-killer capability which allows the crew of T-72M1Z to acquire rapidly and destroy multiple targets. Additionally system allows commander to override gunners decisions. The digital, ballistic computer provides solutions for 6 types of ammunitions, by processing information generated by up-to-date set of sensors or input by the gunner or commander.
The crew survivability was improved by the adoption of very effective ERA in major areas, which offers better protection against chemical energy projectiles. With up-to-date Automatic Fire Suppression System any fire in the Crea Compartment is automatically detected by IR Detectors and suppressed by Halon 1301. The Engine Comparment is protected by separate, also automatically operating system which bases on Temperature Sensing Firewire and suppresses any fire with Halon 1211.
Newly added Laser Warning System provides information about laser beams of sights range finders and missiles guiding systems and reacts automatically firing smoke grenades from two, 6 launchers banks. The system can be overridden by the commander who can fire these grenades manually in personally selected sequences or use backing, manual system also consisting of two, 6 launchers banks.
-----------------------------------
Far as I can tell the only really interesting addon is the Laser Warning Receiver with the option to spoof ATGMs with smoke grenades. Anyone has any idea how effective are smoke grenades against hellfires? -
dunno about the hellfires, but it won't do a bit of good against an ATGM like the SPIKE... its not laser-based. i don't see how they can detect it until its too late for them to manually activate countermeasures...
picture this... "incoming!! Shiiii....... *boom* " ... -
There are two type of Hellfire , one is laser guided , another is radar guided.Originally posted by CX:dunno about the hellfires, but it won't do a bit of good against an ATGM like the SPIKE... its not laser-based. i don't see how they can detect it until its too late for them to manually activate countermeasures...
picture this... "incoming!! Shiiii....... *boom* " ...
So if we are using the Radar guided Hellfire2 , good luck...... -
Hellfire radar guided meh? i always thought the other version is like the Mavarick,IR and Visual guided?
-
http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jalw/jalw001013_1_n.shtmlOriginally posted by |-|05|:Hellfire radar guided meh? i always thought the other version is like the Mavarick,IR and Visual guided?
look for the table below.... -
Anti laser systems are overrated in their effectiveness... while the missile may have lost track, it's still blasting towards it's target at over two times the speed of sounds... unelss the afv bothers to move a lot, it's still not gonna make it... esp when the missile is close...
-
depends on what their training is, but i find it inconceivable that they'll sit still while dispensing smoke to confuse the incoming projectiles...
i'm sure they've well-established drills in response to threats... whether its speeding off zig-zag in the opposite direction or making hard-right or hard-left or stuff like that...
would depend on the terrain and the skill of the tankee then... cos even if they do evade the hellfire, they might end up throwing track in the process... -
Quoted from Foxtrout8.............
there are two type of Hellfire , one is laser guided , another is radar guided.
So if we are using the Radar guided Hellfire2 , good luck
___________________________________
Yeah I've looked at your link. However, the radar-guided AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire 2 requires specifically the all-important AN/APG-78 fire control radar for target aquisition which we won't be getting for our Longbows. Unless we can rig up our own radar and tinker with the hellfires we'd be buying from boeing, we won't be getting radar-guided kills any time soon.
As an interesting aside, has anyone thought of the possibility of using lasers to give false returns and/or blind targeting lasers a la radar jammers? -
We have the radar......Originally posted by googs:Quoted from Foxtrout8.............
there are two type of Hellfire , one is laser guided , another is radar guided.
So if we are using the Radar guided Hellfire2 , good luck
___________________________________
Yeah I've looked at your link. However, the radar-guided AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire 2 requires specifically the all-important AN/APG-78 fire control radar for target aquisition which we won't be getting for our Longbows. Unless we can rig up our own radar and tinker with the hellfires we'd be buying from boeing, we won't be getting radar-guided kills any time soon.
Anyway , welcome aboard..~!