Replacement for our light tanks and MBT?
-
Just how great is the Bionix compared to a souped up M113?Originally posted by Laplace:Let's just keep this thread on rail shall we? I mean, what's there to flame about? Let's just keep it cool eh?
My snape observation; I think the Bionix has quite a high profile eh, does anyone here think that by adding a cannon turrent on top might elevate the center of gravity to much and hence offset balance and stability?
There's lots of M113 in the world that's up for 'lelong'. SAF should not ignore this neither should ST! Potential upgrade market for upgrades in power-pack, armour, stretch, conversion to other support functions....
I hear the Ultra is the best tank to drive in armour formation. Light and nimble. Goes everywhere you want it to. Bionix too heavy and power to weight ratio not that great. SM1 is also fun drive but a bit long in the tooth....
Ausies withdrew their Piranhas in East Timor and replaced them with M113s.
How about a M113 based light tank? Aussies used them in Vietnam with a 75mm gun? Crude but shows some potential.
I'm not trying to be funny here BUT if there's a more cost effective answer why not go with it? Ok I understand that the re-works may not be as easy as it seems but at least the acquisition costs is lower right? -
M113s? Are you serious? M113s are thin skinned, even 0.5cal can punch through. The hull is made of aluminium, aluminium burns. If you take an M113 and grind it up into powder and you'll have a nice pile of rocket fuel. You can only strap on that much extra applique armour until it can hardly move. Best to leave the M113s in the roles they are good in, as battlefield taxis.
-
One of the biggest advantage that the old M113 have is its swimming capability. It is ready for river crossing with the minimum of preparations, very fast as compared to BX. Those that knew able the preparations for the BX for swimming will know that it is very troublesome and makes it very vulnerable. I think this is the biggest problem with the BX. That is one of the reasons why we upgraded the M113 to the Ultra standard while at the same time producing the BX.
-
Isn't the AARV based on the M113 or some other vehicles?
-
Are you an actual tankee? My impression was that armored units tried to avoid river crossings as much as possible, even with M113s. Instead, as far as possible they try to get combat engineers to lay a bridge, since it is safer, faster, produces less wear on the machines and is more tactical. You usually need CEs to prepare the banks anyway, otherwise you won't be able to get in or out of the water. It was my impression that the swimming capability was only for use when there was no alternative. Could you or any other guys in Armour confirm this?
-
since you all talk about tanks here, i need to ask something.
can singapore's road survive a abram without cracking? -
Good question! But afraid we may never find out would we!Originally posted by snk86:since you all talk about tanks here, i need to ask something.
can singapore's road survive a abram without cracking?
But I think it will damage the road to a certain extend...maybe not to what you have in mind. -
Singapore roads are designed to withstand loads of over 100 tons.Originally posted by snk86:since you all talk about tanks here, i need to ask something.
can singapore's road survive a abram without cracking?
The Abram weigh around 60 tons.
If the tracks on the Abram are padded, then the asphalt on the road surface will not be damaged, otherwise there will be track marks on the asphalt surfaces. -
Little difference, all tracks will damage roads to a certain extent.
The real reason why we dun have heavyweight western MBTs, I suspect, is not because they will cruch our roads or get bogged down at Johor Baru forest (considering the opfor are also using MBTs). The real reason, I believe, is one that of cost and praticality.
Can Singapore really have an armoured cav.? Will we fight our wars with tons of armour rolling down JB armoured fist methods? If anything, it seems that we are more content with "flyweight" fighting, meaning we fight smart rather then hard. Hence the emphasis on advanced artty support, smart anti-armour units/munitions and the like. Our hope is probably to avoid armoured clashes altogether and destroy the opfor's armoured assets before they can actually make a concerted punch with their steel.
There is also of course, the fact that this region is generally deviod of large formations of heavy armour. Sure, maybe a platoon here or there of opfor MBTs, but to make any real punch at all they will have to throw everything at us, which leaves them with no way of replacing losses. More likely, their MBTs are not they to roll over, par say, but to provide their forces with heavy mobile armoured firepower, a capability we hope to match with future light armour in team with ground infantry antiarmor units.
One can only see if time plays out in our favour. -
Not really loh.....The use flatbeds to transport cranes around...and those things are bloody heavy!But still not markingsOriginally posted by Atobe:Singapore roads are designed to withstand loads of over 100 tons.
The Abram weigh around 60 tons.
If the tracks on the Abram are padded, then the asphalt on the road surface will not be damaged, otherwise there will be track marks on the asphalt surfaces. -
The problem is getting up the infrastructure to maintain MBTs as well as support them in battle. You don't drive them around like your Honda civic, they exert massive wear and tear on themselves. On average, even fresh tanks will break down at a rate of 1 percent over a period of 25 hours march. Attrition can mount from units lost to mechnical failure rather then combat.
Sure, seeing malaysian T-80s and PT-91s running around may be cool, but one wonders if they really have the infrastructure to keep it all together, especially in a prolonged operation. Or is their armoured core held together just by tape and bubblegum that will fall apart in war? -
Exactly, SAF allow light M113s to travel on LCK road etc, But heavies always travel on commercial flatbeds.Originally posted by |-|05|:Not really loh.....The use flatbeds to transport cranes around...and those things are bloody heavy!But still not markings
When , I was in Sungei Gedong, there was a dirt road with pot holes here & there going toward Camp 1 which was actually a well laid asphalt road before, but it was turn into such a condition due to
M-60s AVLB & CEV moving in & out from camp to Area 8XX as well to Area D. This is becos I think of its weight & the rubber pad on the tracks that might have been sheared off during sharp turn.
CHARGE!!!
-
It is true the reliability of tracked vehs is poorer that a wheeled veh, but it has a better tactical mobility than any wheeled veh especially in the tropical rain forest terrain that we are in.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:The problem is getting up the infrastructure to maintain MBTs as well as support them in battle. You don't drive them around like your Honda civic, they exert massive wear and tear on themselves. On average, even fresh tanks will break down at a rate of 1 percent over a period of 25 hours march. Attrition can mount from units lost to mechnical failure rather then combat.
Sure, seeing malaysian T-80s and PT-91s running around may be cool, but one wonders if they really have the infrastructure to keep it all together, especially in a prolonged operation. Or is their armoured core held together just by tape and bubblegum that will fall apart in war?
That is also why the armour formation give up the V-200 in the 70s.
With today technology and well designed tracked AFV , mechanical breakdown is greatly reduced, but it still demand more than a wheeled AFV. What is really is needed is a good Tech squad to ensure them in fine fighting condition.
CHARGE!!! -
Flatbeds are used to prevent any unpadded tank tracks from damaging the roads, but SGP roads can definitely support the weight of any tank in the Class of an Abrams.Originally posted by |-|05|:Not really loh.....The use flatbeds to transport cranes around...and those things are bloody heavy!But still not markings
As was mentioned by someone, the flatbeds are used to transport the heavy weight tracked equipment to prevent damage to their costly undercarriage as a result of the high wear and tear over long distances.
In any case, the flatbed transport is a safer and quicker way to get any tracked behemoth moved over long distances; safer especially for civilian traffic that is unfamiliar to the loud and frightening size of these heavy behemoths encountered. -
I think part of the equation also lies in the ground pressure of the AFV, not just the weight alone. I read somewhere modern MBTs exert a lower ground pressure than a man in his combat boots, so its safe to say an Abrams will not crack SG roads provided it does not do "skid-brake" maneuvers or accelerate sharply from stop....
-
Undercarriage ?? I believe you are talking abt the suspension ,maybe the torsion bar suspension in some AFVs. Becos tracked AFV has no undercarriage, only amour.Originally posted by Atobe:Flatbeds are used to prevent any unpadded tank tracks from damaging the roads, but SGP roads can definitely support the weight of any tank in the Class of an Abrams.
As was mentioned by someone, the flatbeds are used to transport the heavy weight tracked equipment to prevent damage to their costly undercarriage as a result of the high wear and tear over long distances.
In any case, the flatbed transport is a safer and quicker way to get any tracked behemoth moved over long distances; safer especially for civilian traffic that is unfamiliar to the loud and frightening size of these heavy behemoths encountered.
A heavy weight tracked veh is not as reliable as a wheeled one, therefore it might actually breakdown & cause a hell of a traffic jam.
CHARGE!!! -
Depends, on a flat out road march, wheeled units are far more reliable then tracked units... HOWEVER, once you go cross country, you will find that tracked mobility becomes FAR more reliable, able to take far more abuse before requiring maintaince.
Heavy wheeled units like your LAV however, are not very reliable. While good on roads, once they encounter mud, sand or soil, they require wheel replacements every two weeks or risk failure. A tracked M113 however, can be neglected for 3 months before somebody takes a look at it. -
What use is a MBT that is limited to Singapore roads only?Originally posted by Atobe:Singapore roads are designed to withstand loads of over 100 tons.
The Abram weigh around 60 tons.
If the tracks on the Abram are padded, then the asphalt on the road surface will not be damaged, otherwise there will be track marks on the asphalt surfaces.
Note Malaysia and Indonesia do not construct roads as we do.
1. Granite stone on soil
2. Rolled flat
3. Granite chips.
4. Rolled flat
5. 2 layers of asphalt.
I saw roads in JB and Batam, asphalt directly on flattened "yellow soil"
IMHO, MY and Indonesian roads won't fare well under APC/AFV tank threads. -
M113 still the best! Don't underestimate their potential. Still plenty left to go around.
Sometimes you get answers by looking backwards...... -
Yes i agree, M113 should not be under estimated. To answer a previous question,yes i am a tankee. And yes, river crossing is not prefered by the SAF for armoured forces. We will usually look for the SCE for support eg the new BLB. Reson why river crossing is not prefered is that AMX-13SM1 tanks are included in the ABG together with the M113 and/or the BX. Both the BX and the M113 can swim but the SM1 can't so river crossing by swimming is not possible without the support by the SCE.
-
More like flatbeds are used so that the tank tracks wont wear out doing useless thing and also because the tank's fuel comsumstion is crap.Originally posted by Atobe:Flatbeds are used to prevent any unpadded tank tracks from damaging the roads, but SGP roads can definitely support the weight of any tank in the Class of an Abrams.
As was mentioned by someone, the flatbeds are used to transport the heavy weight tracked equipment to prevent damage to their costly undercarriage as a result of the high wear and tear over long distances.
In any case, the flatbed transport is a safer and quicker way to get any tracked behemoth moved over long distances; safer especially for civilian traffic that is unfamiliar to the loud and frightening size of these heavy behemoths encountered. -
If ever a 60 ton Main Battle Tank (MBT) that belongs to the SAF visit either one of these two neighboring countries - UNINVITED - do you think it matters whatever kind of road surfaces is available ?Originally posted by touchstone_2000:What use is a MBT that is limited to Singapore roads only?
Note Malaysia and Indonesia do not construct roads as we do.
1. Granite stone on soil
2. Rolled flat
3. Granite chips.
4. Rolled flat
5. 2 layers of asphalt.
I saw roads in JB and Batam, asphalt directly on flattened "yellow soil"
IMHO, MY and Indonesian roads won't fare well under APC/AFV tank threads.
The situation will be serious enough when the SAF MBT appear UNINVITED on foreign soil, and the Combat Engineers will be around to maintain the various routes of advance.
In any case, the tracks on a MBT is the road itself, on which the road wheels of the tank runs on - the track allow the MBT to "have its own road" any where it travels. -
Have you ever seen a M113 'opened up' by a 10kg TNT land mine, or an anti-personnel mine, or shot up by an armor piercing bullet of only 5.56mm ?Originally posted by Fairyland:M113 still the best! Don't underestimate their potential. Still plenty left to go around.
Sometimes you get answers by looking backwards......
Visit Vietnam and see some of the burn out hulks of M113, and you can imagine the kind of casualties that result from such incidents.
It is about time to scrap this aluminium skinned APC, and if it need to be 'recycled' then use them behind the front lines. -
I tot you have armour plate to jack up and attach to bottom of M113 and there's quite a number of armour add-ons in the market today. Granted the net effect is a heavier vehicle but at least there's some control by selecting right protection level.Originally posted by Atobe:Have you ever seen a M113 'opened up' by a 10kg TNT land mine, or an anti-personnel mine, or shot up by an armor piercing bullet of only 5.56mm ?
Visit Vietnam and see some of the burn out hulks of M113, and you can imagine the kind of casualties that result from such incidents.
It is about time to scrap this aluminium skinned APC, and if it need to be 'recycled' then use them behind the front lines.
Future ops area, thanks to Osama AND Technology......will not really have a front line!
It's going to be change all the time at a faster rate. -
The viets used 5.56?I thought their Anti tank sniper guns were 12.7?Originally posted by Atobe:Have you ever seen a M113 'opened up' by a 10kg TNT land mine, or an anti-personnel mine, or shot up by an armor piercing bullet of only 5.56mm ?
Visit Vietnam and see some of the burn out hulks of M113, and you can imagine the kind of casualties that result from such incidents.
It is about time to scrap this aluminium skinned APC, and if it need to be 'recycled' then use them behind the front lines.