What would u like to see on a new SAF light tank?
-
Dammit! how u know??
But seriously, yes, i do agree that many (if not all) of us have never served in the armour side, which is exactly why we need people like YOU to help us by providing input!!
[quote]Originally posted by On the way:
I can see every one here has smoked too much ganja, -
Hi Bcoy,
"Well welcome - not up to TankNet forums isn't it?[/b][/quote]"
Sigh, I am afraid so, maybe I can invite SimonTan and Rstiawan over from Tanknet forums. Spark things up a bit. Anyway, not too much interesting over there now. Did you read the thread on "MBT Sales" quite interesting. SAF is mentioned. -
"Originally posted by On the way:Hi Bcoy,
"Well welcome - not up to TankNet forums isn't it?
Sigh, I am afraid so, maybe I can invite SimonTan and Rstiawan over from Tanknet forums. Spark things up a bit. Anyway, not too much interesting over there now. Did you read the thread on "MBT Sales" quite interesting. SAF is mentioned. [/b][/quote]
Yes, I read the posts and I post there under the nick "bravocube" too.I have to admit Simon Tan is among the best and very well read - better than all the other Malaysian posters put together.
Still, we can contribute positively here and improve certain things.
I do enjoy tanknet forum - views are generally matured, constructive and the posters come from different parts of the world - most with some form of (conscript or regular) military experience as well.
Anyway - I believe that there are needs for both light and heavy tanks in this region. Did you find out about the MEXAS armour plating? -
Hi Joe Black,
I have to difer from your opinion on this. By the way, you forgot to add Cadillag Stngray II to the list.
M8 AGS- U have to buy it with the heaviest level 3 modular armour package, and even than it will barely stop a single warhead handheld RPG. This is due to its original layer of armour which is only an alumninum alloy. An ATGW will waste this light weight. Compare what a modern heavy MBT can offer. At least 300mm RHA at the most vulnerable points plus ERA to defeat even tandem warhead ATGW. Not to mention if you go with a western heavy MBT, u can get chobham armour, or maybe even a DU layer on top pf that, plus ERA if u wish too. Also, even a M1 early model was shown to have withstand a T-72 APFDSD round with no interior penetration. As the Malaysian PT-91 uses the same 125mm gun, can you convincingly claim that a M8 with the level 3 armour will also be able to withstand a 125mm APFSDS round? I think not. I like the auto loader on the M8, but I hate the 30 main round capacity. Most MBTs can carry at least 50 or more for 105mm ammo. In combat, 30 main rounds may not last you thru 3 engagements.
ASCOD- sames weaknesses as the M8 except worse. No turret stabilization, only 40 rounds of main ammo, and base model does not come with any ability to withstand any more than small arms and shell splinters. Need serious armour upgrade
CV90- again lack of ability to take punishment, and 40 round capacity. Plus i have to question the price of all these light tank purchases. As you know, there are no available used light tanks such as the above on the world market. Hence, the SAF will have to buy new. I would venture to say that a new CV90 or M8 will probably cost more than a used Leo 1, M1, and most certainly a T-72. There is a fire sale on M60s somewhere in the world, and the IDF will still sell you really nice Magach 7s or SABRAS for a good price.
<<Originally posted by Joe Black:<
I think 4 SAB is being assigned to 32 Div. Although I would not dispute the need for a SM1 type of tank, the mix is all wrong in the SAF. u have 350 AMX-13s and about 80 Tempest. It should be the other way around. -
Hi Bcoy,
Yes, I did find out about the Mexas armour plating. Frankly, I think his calculations a little bit sala. I look at the graph, but I don't see it. What he is saying is that a 20mm think Mexas layer has the same resistance as 250mm RHA!! Wah lau, in that case, you can use the Bionix IFV as a heavy APC! This Mexas is not miracle armour. If it is, than every tankmaker in the world will add 60mm of Mexas armour on top of 10 mm of aluminum armour and have a RHA of 750mm, enough to defeat the strongest 120mm DU rounds. Well, he lives in Vancouver. BC I believe. Maybe I meet him for coffee the next time I am there. He is angmoh and lives in canada, so I don't think he will be a ISD spy. U are right, I enjoy the fact there are Israeli tankees, US and British tankees and even Russian tankess on that tanknet forum. Everyone is professional.Originally posted by bcoy:Yes, I read the posts and I post there under the nick "bravocube" too.I have to admit Simon Tan is among the best and very well read.
Still, we can contribute positively here and improve certain things.
I do enjoy tanknet forum - views are generally matured, constructive and the posters come from different parts of the world - most with some form of (conscript or regular) military experience as well.
Anyway - I believe that there are needs for both light and heavy tanks in this region. Did you find out about the MEXAS armour plating? -
A 120mm gun is an overkill in SE Asia. Your heaviest armor opposition is Leo 1s in Thai army, plus Pt-91 in Mat army. APFSDS 105mm should be enough to penetrate both these MBTs even over the frontal arc. To be on the safe side, SAS can order APFSDS DU rounds. For sure will kill them. Also, the 105mm will permit at least the carriage of 50 main tank rounds versus low 30s for 120mm. For live firing training, it will be cheaper.Originally posted by zigzag:Well, i guess how many rounds u can squeeze in depends on the calibre of the gun. I mean, if u are gonna slap a 120mm CTG on to it, i guess u could probably squeeze in about 20-25 rounds realistically.... Logically, a smaller gun means u can carry more rounds, rite? I am also worried about weight. I understand that an autoloader is necessary due to manpower restrictions, but that usually means a larger turrent and more weight and less space. Hopefully they can find a way for a small and light autoloading system. Do u guys think a 120mm gun is really necessary?
-
Nonsense, it never hurts to get an increase in preformance, esp when the increase will help save your butt. 120mm can penetrate and kill the Malaysians further off then a 105mm can, where a glancing, or break up shot in a 105 will be fatal with a 120mm.
Somemore if the Malaysians decide to include modular armor packages, your 105's preformance will be limited even more. Entry level for anti tank cannon caliber nowadays, is talked about in terms of 120mm liao. It will not hurt to have a 120mm cannon around, esp when MBTs are getting tougher nowadays. -
Offtopic question.....anyone here knows the formular to get caliber? i forgot liao....i know it has something to do with barrel length and bullet diameter....Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Nonsense, it never hurts to get an increase in preformance, esp when the increase will help save your butt. 120mm can penetrate and kill the Malaysians further off then a 105mm can, where a glancing, or break up shot in a 105 will be fatal with a 120mm.
Somemore if the Malaysians decide to include modular armor packages, your 105's preformance will be limited even more. Entry level for anti tank cannon caliber nowadays, is talked about in terms of 120mm liao. It will not hurt to have a 120mm cannon around, esp when MBTs are getting tougher nowadays. -
There are no Leo 1s in the Thai army.Originally posted by On the way:A 120mm gun is an overkill in SE Asia. Your heaviest armor opposition is Leo 1s in Thai army, plus Pt-91 in Mat army. APFSDS 105mm should be enough to penetrate both these MBTs even over the frontal arc. To be on the safe side, SAS can order APFSDS DU rounds. For sure will kill them. Also, the 105mm will permit at least the carriage of 50 main tank rounds versus low 30s for 120mm. For live firing training, it will be cheaper. -
On The Way, the problem is that the heavy tanks you want are not going to be very mobile or easy to support. Not many bridges and roads in the region can support their weight, meaning that the combat engineers will have their hands full just keeping them moving. They also need a lot of logistical support. We have enough to support hundreds of light tanks, but not hundreds of MBTs. Unless we really beef up the logistics, the MBTs will have no fuel and no ammo.
About MEXAS armor: Armor has different resistances toward different weapons. Not just kinetic (AP, APFSDS) vs. chemical (HEAT, HESH), but each individual weapon. It is possible for a piece of armor to have 250mm RHA against tungsten sabot penetrators, but only 20mm RHA against carbide-tipped sabot penetrators of the same calibre. MEXAS is a ceramic armor, which works by being so hard that the penetrator shatters like glass when it hits. But that only works if the ceramic is hard enough. If the penetrator is harder than the ceramic, the armor shatters and offers very little protection. So read claims about armor protection with many grains of salt. -
On The Way, while I understand your desire as a tanker to have a more heavily armored vehicle, you must also understand that the SAF does not have the near unlimited financial, manpower and logistical resources of the US Army. If it came down to a choice, we could have hundreds of light tanks or dozens of MBTs. While you would of course prefer to be sitting in a safer and more powerful MBT, it is better for the Army as a whole if you accept a lower level of armor protection so that there can be more tanks. I feel that the current force structure of 350 light tanks and <100 MBTs is about right.
How much is enough armor? While your opinion as a tanker is very valuable, hear this ignorant infantryman. Our potential adversaries have few tanks (even after Malaysia gets its MBTs), so protection against tank main gun rounds is less important, especially since it is very expensive weight-wise. We can also forget about ATGM protection, since even massive M1A2s are penetrated by modern ATGMs (ground or air-launched). I believe that the main threats will come from anti-tank weapons carried by infantry and light armored vehicles.
As such, we should aim for at least frontal protection against 84mm HEAT (400mm RHA) and 90mm APDS (170mm RHA), with all round protection against RPG-9 (300mm RHA) and 35mm APDS (100mm RHA). Top armor must be proof against 155mm airburst. The next step up would be to 106mm HEAT frontal protection and 84mm HEAT all-round protection, using add-on ERA. This would make the tanks tough to crack for anything except tank main gun rounds and ground or air-launched ATGMs, which is already better than plain vanilla Centurion Mk 2. I think this can be achieved with spaced armor and ERAto boost the chemical energy protection of a Bionix, along with some applique HHS or ceramic armor. A more powerful engine to carry the extra weight of the armor and turret, and it should be OK.
All my opinion of course. -
Dear T-rex,
U are not looking at the total picture. U are looking at just the performance of 120mm vs 105mm. Of course, the 120mm is a better gun. no doubt. I examine other factors such as:
a) Engagement distances- Given our type of terrain, with no open desert, what is the typical engagement distance in a tank vs tank here in SE Asia. Certainly not 4000m or more. More likely to be 1000m to 2500m max. The 120mm is clearly superior in performance to the 105mm at ranges of 3500m and above. At shorter range, there is no distinct advantage. At 1500m, all the modular armour in the world will not save u from a 105mm DU round.
b) Belly load - 120mm ammo is larger, and soem come with separate charge, etc. In a MBT, you typicaly give up 30% more carrying capacity if you go with a 120mm. In a 105mm M1 for example, you can carry 55 rounds. When you go to 120mm M1A2, the belly load drops to 40 only. Can u be so confident in the fog of war and knowing the standard of our MT drivers that your ammo train will find you in time to replenish you? The xtra 15 rounds could mean success or failure. Its at least 2 engagements more. In addition, SAF philosophy is that tank will take a support role for infantry. Trust me, the infantry will appreciate the extra rounds.
c) Who is your enemy? - The Malaysian armour is mainly Sibmas, Scorpion, Condors, KIFVs, etc. 105mm HE is more than enough to kill them. PT-91 comprise only a small percentage. U want the whole SAF tank fleet to go to 120mm just for this?
d) Advances in 105mm ammo- Although the L7 is a the end of its life cycle, the ammo makers are constantly comming up with improved 105mm rounds. The IMI 105mm DU round is supposed to be one bad mother, with penetrator rod going thru T-72 at 5000m.
I can go on, but these are just the main points.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Nonsense, it never hurts to get an increase in preformance, esp when the increase will help save your butt. 120mm can penetrate and kill the Malaysians further off then a 105mm can, where a glancing, or break up shot in a 105 will be fatal with a 120mm.
Somemore if the Malaysians decide to include modular armor packages, your 105's preformance will be limited even more. Entry level for anti tank cannon caliber nowadays, is talked about in terms of 120mm liao. It will not hurt to have a 120mm cannon around, esp when MBTs are getting tougher nowadays. -
I may be wrong here, but i will attempt to answer your question. Take the most common western tank gun, the British 105mm L7 52.
105mm is the diametre of the inside of the gun barrel measurement taken at the end of the barrel.
L7 is the model or mark of the gun
52 is the calibre of the gun measured by taking the length of the entire barrel divided by the diameter of the barrel. Hope that helpsOriginally posted by |-|05|:Offtopic question.....anyone here knows the formular to get caliber? i forgot liao....i know it has something to do with barrel length and bullet diameter.... -
sorry, M60A3Originally posted by bcoy:There are no Leo 1s in the Thai army.
-
Ahhh yes that is the way...thx for reminding meOriginally posted by On the way:I may be wrong here, but i will attempt to answer your question. Take the most common western tank gun, the British 105mm L7 52.
105mm is the diametre of the inside of the gun barrel measurement taken at the end of the barrel.
L7 is the model or mark of the gun
52 is the calibre of the gun measured by taking the length of the entire barrel divided by the diameter of the barrel. Hope that helps
-
Dkhoo,
u wrote "not going to be very mobile or easy to support. Not many bridges and roads in the region can support their weight, meaning that the combat engineers will have their hands full just keeping them moving. " Compare with other arms of the army, armor is the most mobile, even slow armour. How do you know the roads and bridges cannot support the weight. A fully loaded 5 axle lorry carrying a fully loaded container weights close to 44 tons. Yet u see them ply up and down NS highway like nothing. A 50 ton MBT should be fine. The roads will stand up.Originally posted by dkhoo:On The Way, the problem is that the heavy tanks you want are not going to be very mobile or easy to support. Not many bridges and roads in the region can support their weight, meaning that the combat engineers will have their hands full just keeping them moving. They also need a lot of logistical support. We have enough to support hundreds of light tanks, but not hundreds of MBTs. Unless we really beef up the logistics, the MBTs will have no fuel and no ammo.
My understanding of Mexas armour is a little different. It is not just ceramics, but is actaully a sandwich. The last layer is usually a heavy duty ballistic spall liner, with the 1st layer being ceramics. The Mexas armor craters absorbing the shot, and than it hopes to shatters the penetrator rod. Its expensive, but I am not sure how good it really is.
About MEXAS armor: Armor has different resistances toward different weapons. Not just kinetic (AP, APFSDS) vs. chemical (HEAT, HESH), but each individual weapon. It is possible for a piece of armor to have 250mm RHA against tungsten sabot penetrators, but only 20mm RHA against carbide-tipped sabot penetrators of the same calibre. MEXAS is a ceramic armor, which works by being so hard that the penetrator shatters like glass when it hits. But that only works if the ceramic is hard enough. If the penetrator is harder than the ceramic, the armor shatters and offers very little protection. So read claims about armor protection with many grains of salt. -
We know the roads and bridges on the N-S Highway will stand up to 50ton monsters, hell it could probably take the 70ton M1A1/A2. But what if they're needed AWAY from the N-S Highway, to lend support to infantry fighting in the villages, rubber and oil palm plantations? Would the roads and bridges there support the weight of the 50 ton MBT then? The tanks are not going to be very useful if all they can do is ply the N-S Highway and some of the better built trunk roads.Originally posted by On the way:Compare with other arms of the army, armor is the most mobile, even slow armour. How do you know the roads and bridges cannot support the weight. A fully loaded 5 axle lorry carrying a fully loaded container weights close to 44 tons. Yet u see them ply up and down NS highway like nothing. A 50 ton MBT should be fine. The roads will stand up. -
What is this obsession with fighting in the jungle and plantations? What is in there that is of strategic value? I u have to go in there, We have commandoes, guards, backed up by CAS and helicopters, let them go in and get them. They can keep the jungle. We need the airports ports and towns. No war in the history of the world has been won by holding the jungle and plantations. Many wars have been won by capturing the other side's capital.Originally posted by Viper52:We know the roads and bridges on the N-S Highway will stand up to 50ton monsters, hell it could probably take the 70ton M1A1/A2. But what if they're needed AWAY from the N-S Highway, to lend support to infantry fighting in the villages, rubber and oil palm plantations? Would the roads and bridges there support the weight of the 50 ton MBT then? The tanks are not going to be very useful if all they can do is ply the N-S Highway and some of the better built trunk roads.
-
Its not an obsession its reality. If an headlong advance is mounted on a single or twin axis for a capital(in your case a capital a few hundred kilometres away) you WILL leave your flanks exposed and it is where enemy thats left behind in your headlong rush will attack to harass and hinder your logistics tail Look at the recent war in Iraq, had the Iraqi army had been in a better shape they would have held up the Yank advance a lot more. As it was an army hit hard by desertions, low morale and poor weapons backed up by Saddam's Fedayeen goons put American assertions of a "swift war" in doubt for a while. What do you think would happen if the attacking force did not have crushing superiority and an enemy not weakened like Saddam's was?Originally posted by On the way:What is this obsession with fighting in the jungle and plantations? What is in there that is of strategic value? I u have to go in there, We have commandoes, guards, backed up by CAS and helicopters, let them go in and get them. They can keep the jungle. We need the airports ports and towns. No war in the history of the world has been won by holding the jungle and plantations. Many wars have been won by capturing the other side's capital.
Your plan requires crushing superiority in weapons, air power and support to clear out the flanks. Do we have these over any of our potential enemies? Superirority yes, but not crushing superiority, not by a long way
"We have commandoes, guards, backed up by CAS and helicopters, let them go in and get them."
The limitations of air power to identify and destroy targets in a jungle environment have been well documented. Read up on them.
"They can keep the jungle. We need the airports ports and towns."
So as to allow the enemy to stockpile arms and equipment in the very jungles you let him have to use as staging areas to mount hit-and-run, harrassment and interdiction raids on the ports, towns and airports? Smart move! -
You sala liao, the ATGMs were launched against the rear armor of the M1A1 (there were no M1A2s in the Iraqi Freedom), which were far less armored then the sides or frontal armor. In which case, any MBT would be penetrated anyway.Originally posted by dkhoo:We can also forget about ATGM protection, since even massive M1A2s are penetrated by modern ATGMs (ground or air-launched). I believe that the main threats will come from anti-tank weapons carried by infantry and light armored vehicles.
The frontal armor of the M1A1 above series are the heaviest in the world, the actual RHA rating of it's protection package is closely guarded, but it's in excess of 1,500mm RHA (1.5 meters worth of steel). Virtually no anti tank weapon in the field today can penetrate the M1 series from the front save except for maybe the experimental hyperkenitic LOSAT missiles. Even at optimal point blank range, 120mm and 125mm APFSDS rods simply grooved or stuck out of the armor like arrows. And HEAT warheads simply messed the paint.
The protection of the M1 series was prehaps one of the reasons why they could literally drive into Baghdad straight into a malestorm of flying RPGs, dug in T-72 guns and improvised anti tank weapons with little impression made on them except for one tank which had to be left behind and destroyed because it's engine caught fire typical yank oops troops style. -
In the first place, the likelihood there is an advance of several hundred klicks into the enemy capital is unlikely. Most likely, we establish holding line to secure water assets. But lets say we do go all the way there, than I suggest u do not look at the Iraq war example. Its a totally different terrain. In order to attack our flanks, the enemy will himself have to move his arty, armour, infantry, etc. through jungle and plantations. Good luck to him. If he can move all of that more than 5 km a day without getting spotted in the air, than he must have the best army in the world. The enemy at the most can do small scale guereilla style ambush with hand held anti tank weapons, in which case your light tanks will get flamed much more easier than a heavy MBT, hence reducing your odds of fighting out of the ambush.
As for crushing superiority, of course we have crushing and overwhelming superiority at the point of attack. Our entire army and air force is located in the tactical battlefield. The enemy's units are spread north as far as Georgetown, and Langkawi. Furthermore, we choose the time and place of attack. If we attack in the middle of the night, during the peak of Ramadan (when the enemy forces are fasting) or during Hari Raya Puasa, (when their soldiers are on leave), u are saying we will not achieve crushing superiority in the battle field? Maybe you want to be fair to them, and wait for the enemy to move all their units down from the north, and concentrate every single plane and man in the state of Johore and ask them to be on high alert, before you attack? Is that right?
My dear Viper, if the enemy has been able to stockpile arms and equipment in the jungle, than we would have already lost the war. Secret stockpiles in the jungle that you mention are fragments of your imagination. They are a function of time and stealth. Given enough time, and if they are stealthy enough, they can do a Ho chi Minh type trail. If we don't resolve the conflict either militarily or diplomatically within a week, we are finished anyway. I have news for u, The SAF is not build as a long term army of occupation.Originally posted by Viper52:Its not an obsession its reality. If an headlong advance is mounted on a single or twin axis for a capital(in your case a capital a few hundred kilometres away) you WILL leave your flanks exposed and it is where enemy thats left behind in your headlong rush will attack to harass and hinder your logistics tail Look at the recent war in Iraq, had the Iraqi army had been in a better shape they would have held up the Yank advance a lot more. As it was an army hit hard by desertions, low morale and poor weapons backed up by Saddam's Fedayeen goons put American assertions of a "swift war" in doubt for a while. What do you think would happen if the attacking force did not have crushing superiority and an enemy not weakened like Saddam's was?
Your plan requires crushing superiority in weapons, air power and support to clear out the flanks. Do we have these over any of our potential enemies? Superirority yes, but not crushing superiority, not by a long way
"We have commandoes, guards, backed up by CAS and helicopters, let them go in and get them."
The limitations of air power to identify and destroy targets in a jungle environment have been well documented. Read up on them.
"They can keep the jungle. We need the airports ports and towns."
So as to allow the enemy to stockpile arms and equipment in the very jungles you let him have to use as staging areas to mount hit-and-run, harrassment and interdiction raids on the ports, towns and airports? Smart move! -
I thought the AGM-114 Hellfire can make mincemeat out of an M1A2. If still not powerful enough, how about an AGM-65 Maverick?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Virtually no anti tank weapon in the field today can penetrate the M1 series from the front save except for maybe the experimental hyperkenitic LOSAT missiles. -
repeated post deleted
-
U are rite. The M1 is impervious to all those weapons. Now MIA2s can be uparmoured with DU armour! Challenger, Merk 3, Leo L1A2 all in the same class of armour protection. I wonder why SAF still want to buy light tanks for what?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:You sala liao, the ATGMs were launched against the rear armor of the M1A1 (there were no M1A2s in the Iraqi Freedom), which were far less armored then the sides or frontal armor. In which case, any MBT would be penetrated anyway.
The frontal armor of the M1A1 above series are the heaviest in the world, the actual RHA rating of it's protection package is closely guarded, but it's in excess of 1,500mm RHA (1.5 meters worth of steel). Virtually no anti tank weapon in the field today can penetrate the M1 series from the front save except for maybe the experimental hyperkenitic LOSAT missiles. Even at optimal point blank range, 120mm and 125mm APFSDS rods simply grooved or stuck out of the armor like arrows. And HEAT warheads simply messed the paint.
The protection of the M1 series was prehaps one of the reasons why they could literally drive into Baghdad straight into a malestorm of flying RPGs, dug in T-72 guns and improvised anti tank weapons with little impression made on them except for one tank which had to be left behind and destroyed because it's engine caught fire typical yank oops troops style. -
[quote]Originally posted by On the way:
In the first place, the likelihood there is an advance of several hundred klicks into the enemy capital is unlikely.
First you say "Many wars have been won by capturing the other side's capital" then you saw "likelihood there is an advance of several hundred klicks into the enemy capital is unlikely". So which is it?
The enemy at the most can do small scale guereilla style ambush with hand held anti tank weapons, in which case your light tanks will get flamed much more easier than a heavy MBT, hence reducing your odds of fighting out of the ambush.
But whats the point if your heavy MBTs cannot traverse the terrain in the first place? Getting bogged down, having flimsy bridges collapse under them.
My dear Viper, if the enemy has been able to stockpile arms and equipment in the jungle, than we would have already lost the war. Secret stockpiles in the jungle that you mention are fragments of your imagination. They are a function of time and stealth. Given enough time, and if they are stealthy enough, they can do a Ho chi Minh type trail. If we don't resolve the conflict either militarily or diplomatically within a week, we are finished anyway. I have news for u, The SAF is not build as a long term army of occupation.
We don't need for them to stockpile heavy arms and equipment to lose the war. Even if they were to mount a guerilla style campaign and drag the conflict out, its game over.
First, you point out that "We have commandoes, guards, backed up by CAS and helicopters, let them go in and get them.", in other words no need for tanks to go in, then now "The enemy at the most can do small scale guereilla style ambush with hand held anti tank weapons, in which case your light tanks will get flamed much more easier than a heavy MBT, hence reducing your odds of fighting out of the ambush" you expect your heavy MBTs to be involved with such terrain. So which is which, I can't debate with you if you keep shifting the goalposts.