Replacement for our light tanks and MBT?
-
The M113 is not a wonder-vehicle, no matter what its strongest supporter on the web Mike Sparks says. Its armor protection is very weak, compared to modern IFVs like Bionix. If you uparmor it to the same level as the Bionix, it will be underpowered instead. The reason why the armor did well in Vietnam was because the B-70 RPG warheads the enemy used had a high dud rate. The aluminium chassis and armor of the M113 can also burn under the right conditions, releasing toxic fumes. There have been incidents where M113s (and older aluminium Bradleys) have had the whole chassis burned away, leaving only the melted steel tracks, engine and chaingun behind.
At least newer M113s have the fuel tanks on the outside rather than inside -- the old M113s often ignited their crews when penetrated. Many American AIs in Vietnam rode on top of the M113 instead of inside for this reason, even though this exposed them to fire. Better to die of a gunshot wound than being burned alive. Are the Ultras modified in this way, like the M113A3?
The M113 is definitely useful in "second-line" roles where they are unlikely to face enemy fire. They make good mortar carriers, medevac, command and even logistics vehicles. But if you are expecting to be shot at, you will definitely be better in a Bionix. The key is to use the right vehicle for the right situation. The Bionix is too heavy for some roles, the M113 too poorly protected for others, so just mix and match. I am glad to see the SAF is doing this.
The problem with M113s nowadays is that there are other vehicles that are even better second-line vehicles. ST's Terrex and Bronco are two examples, and there are many foreign equivalents. The M113 used to be tough enough to be a front line vehicle, but the improvement in anti-tank weapons means its day is over. -
Please, the Bionix is a superior AFV to the M113. Most of the compliants about it's smaller internal size is pretty much moot, for IFVs in general, will have smaller internal space then any M113. Apples and oranges man.
Why do you think this is so? Because ST has nothing better to do then to produce AFVs that are more expensive and inferior to the M113? Have you lost your mind of forgotten to think?
No, due to the addition of the turret, heavier armour protection and other nic nacs that come along with modern IFVs, IFVs will, inherently contain less space and be heavier then an M113, which is nothing more then a thin skinned shoebox on tracks. Sure you have the ultra, but then again you have a shin skinned mobile shoebox with a turret that tends to light up like WW2 Shermans when hit. Why do you think an M113 can swim easily? Because of it's shoebox, think skinned design that makes it little more then a large, slow, target floating box with ten people inside.
At lest in a Bionix, you can have a chance of surviving an RPG hit. -
Ultras are built for enemy suppression leh and besides AI supposed to dismount to protect it what. So why would it light up. Just 1 Qn, what is the aplique armour bought from our good friends used for. Put in Museum ah? The one good thing about older IFVs is that there have very little electronics. Electronics and outfield dont go very well.
Anyone who was in Australia during 2001 will know what i mean. -
Here's an amateur's view on up-armouring the M113A3:
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/concrete.html
There's also a paper on aluminium armour in www.strategypage.com
Why did ST go for the Bionix? It's superior to a bare M113 for sure but more expensive. In return we now have some local cap in tracked armour vehicle design.
Now let's see this thing exported somewhere for some justification. -
So everything works perfectly in war? No mistakes, just like on exercise? The M113 won't ever get hit despite its large profile? Your AIs are magic, and the enemies are idiots? So good, ah?Originally posted by rancour5:Ultras are built for enemy suppression leh and besides AI supposed to dismount to protect it what. So why would it light up. Just 1 Qn, what is the aplique armour bought from our good friends used for. Put in Museum ah? The one good thing about older IFVs is that there have very little electronics. Electronics and outfield dont go very well. Anyone who was in Australia during 2001 will know what i mean.
The problem with evaluating AFVs is that armor protection is usually classified, so people tend to ignore it. Most exercises don't model vehicle hits well either, even with MILES. People tend to look at interior size, speed, ground pressure, armament, etc, but forget why you have an armored vehicle to begin with.
Again, the Bionix is not better in all roles. The M113 definitely has its place. But if you're going to be shot at a lot, you definitely want more protection. Look at the kings of armored warfare, the Israelis. They favor HAPCs -- MBT hulls with upgraded armor but just a machinegun. Their experience indicates that the most important aspect of a personnel carrier is protection. They also use M113s, but in second-line duties. We can't do what they do, since the terrain here is too soft for HAPCs, but we should not discount their experience either. -
The main hash here, the Bionix is superior then an M113, and the additional cost is more then worth it. Sure you can uparmour the M113 and add all kinds of "modernization" packages onto it, but in the end is it any more survivable or capable then a bare bones Bionix? Additionally, losing one M113 to battlefield threats means losing ten infantrymen, kapish, out fo action just like that. Why? Because they decided to take the cheaper and inferior mount to do jobs a full fledged Bionix should.
Is it any surprise battle taxis are getting more expensive, cheap is one thing, working in battle is another. Why do you think the americans decided to come up with the Bradley if the M113 was so fantastic and cost effective as some would like to sing here? Why would Singapore bother?
What's next? FH2000 superior and more "cost effective" then Primus? Maybe some jokers are going to argue about the superiority of the M16 (in reality one of the most unreliable assualt rifles in history) to the SAR-21. -
The AK-47 round is a few micron bigger then the standard 5.56 calibre used by most NATO designed weapons.Originally posted by |-|05|:The viets used 5.56?I thought their Anti tank sniper guns were 12.7?
This is especially useful for the Vietcongs during the last Vietnam War, when the huge amount of M-16 ammo are found in abundance, and modified to fit the AK-47. -
Hey armor people!
I've got two uni buddies from Sungei Gedong and they told me the reason SAF is still using the AMX-13/SM-1 and its 75mm is because of its size.
I know the main prob down here in the tropics is the very dense jungle. So do the tanks navigate and maneuvre through the woods, in between trees and among thick undergrowth or do they roll about over clearings in the jungle floor? -
Is it the norm for armour to bash thru' thick jungle? Doubt if you can go anywere doing that.
SM-1 used because it's small (width) enough to squeeze into the rubber plantations or more common today palm tree plantations along side the roads of .........
Actually the SM-1 is a very nimble FSV. Very low profile. Actually I don't know why they need to be replaced!
Another drive train upgrade should do ok. New OWS turret if you really need a heavy gun with ATGMs by the sides. Maybe some river fording devices.
Bionix is too heavy and still too expensive! -
I get the impression you don't realize how much stronger the armor on the Bionix is. I will just say that the flank armor on the Bionix is stronger than the front armor of the AMX13SM1, and leave you to think about it. Not just slightly stronger -- several times stronger.
I also get the impression you do not realize how far anti-tank weapons have come since the 1960s. I will also just say that the Armbrust LAWs that we carry at section level were used to destroy entire columns of T-72 MBTs in the Kosovo conflict, and leave you to think about it. Not light tanks or APCs -- MBTs!
Are you getting the picture now why the Bionix was built? -
speed and agility and also size are very visible and look impressive on the training ground. Cost of maintenance and acquisition is also important to the bean-counters.
But when the time comes, armour/protection will be appreciated more.
I think SAF that currently doesn't really seems to care so much about armour. Just look at our vast fleet of underprotected SM1s and M113s. -
I understand what you and S'pore Tyro are driving at -> Protection in the form of modern armour costs money and Bionix is worth every penny spent.Originally posted by dkhoo:I get the impression you don't realize how much stronger the armor on the Bionix is. I will just say that the flank armor on the Bionix is stronger than the front armor of the AMX13SM1, and leave you to think about it. Not just slightly stronger -- several times stronger.
I also get the impression you do not realize how far anti-tank weapons have come since the 1960s. I will also just say that the Armbrust LAWs that we carry at section level were used to destroy entire columns of T-72 MBTs in the Kosovo conflict, and leave you to think about it. Not light tanks or APCs -- MBTs!
Are you getting the picture now why the Bionix was built?
If you look at Bradley and even Bionix, both utilise Bolt-on applique armour as standard. Even Bradley's M2 Aluminium hull upgrade to A2 involves attaching more armour be it spaced, ceramic, plastic or combination.
If AMX13 SM-1 OR M113s cannot accept applique armour to keep current with threats, then I'm wrong. I can accept that. -
Well, in the end the real difference between the M113 or AMX13 and the Bionix is horsepower. The Bionix has a 475 hp engine, while the M113 and AMX13 have 275 hp engines. If you were to upgrade the M113 to the same level of protection as the Bionix it may not even be able to move. The real reason why a redesign was needed was to put in an engine that is more than twice as powerful, so that you can carry enough armor and weapons to be a viable frontline AFV. The M113 chassis is just not cut out to be a frontline APC anymore, unless it undergoes a massive redesign. Still great for lots of things, just that since nowadays section level AT weapons will destroy it from any direction, it shouldn't be on the frontline. Things change.
-
Yes, we are not even getting to the part where we can uparmour the Bionix.
As for keeping the SM1 tank (looks like they're gonna throw it out soon though), seems rather daft, especially when you can get far superior systems like the XM8 AGS which are in the long run far more advanced, upgradable, and easier to maintain. The SM1 is a post WW2 tank using a WW2 Panther 75mm cannon which won't make a dent on today's MBTs. Man, a recoiless rifle team has more firepower then the SM1!
Armour protection is paethetic, internal space is junk, and any penetration will cause the nice autoloader just two feet away from the crew to go up like a roman candle and guess what, Armour Infantry are harder to train and replace then tanks. Compare this to the exceptionally low mortality rate of Abrams tank crews who collectively have taken enough firepower to knock out our entire SM1 fleet.
Maybe the SM1 looks good on paper for cost effectiveness, but in war it may be next to useless. As a matter of fact, we are driving tanks that are inferior to M4 Shermans, and we don't even have thousands of them to face the enemy. What makes you think we'll fare better? That thing's a deathtrap. -
What you just said is very true. Our ultras and Bx are sufficeint to knock out all the SM1. That was probably why the 41SAR project was scrapped. Cos the tanks just arnt good enough.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Yes, we are not even getting to the part where we can uparmour the Bionix.
As for keeping the SM1 tank (looks like they're gonna throw it out soon though), seems rather daft, especially when you can get far superior systems like the XM8 AGS which are in the long run far more advanced, upgradable, and easier to maintain. The SM1 is a post WW2 tank using a WW2 Panther 75mm cannon which won't make a dent on today's MBTs. Man, a recoiless rifle team has more firepower then the SM1!
Armour protection is paethetic, internal space is junk, and any penetration will cause the nice autoloader just two feet away from the crew to go up like a roman candle and guess what, Armour Infantry are harder to train and replace then tanks. Compare this to the exceptionally low mortality rate of Abrams tank crews who collectively have taken enough firepower to knock out our entire SM1 fleet.
Maybe the SM1 looks good on paper for cost effectiveness, but in war it may be next to useless. As a matter of fact, we are driving tanks that are inferior to M4 Shermans, and we don't even have thousands of them to face the enemy. What makes you think we'll fare better? That thing's a deathtrap. -
What the SAF really needs to work on, is also throwing in body armour for our troops. 70 percent of combat wounds come from injuries to the torso which can be protected by body armour.
Before anybody throws up the usual, and uninformed rethoric about how body around is heavy and hot and gets us hit, let it be known that only SEVEN percent of allied deaths during Iraqi Freedom came from torso injuries, which were caused by large caliber weapons or projectiles entering from an odd angle and bypassing the armour. Body armour undoubtedly saved many troopers and kept them in the fight, especially after they had been hit. Most of allied combat deaths came from neck and face hits, and of course, dangerous leg injuries. A reduction of 70 percent losses equates into cost savings far in excess of the actual cost of equipping our troops with protection.
It about time the SAF sent us out into the battlefield with more to protect our bodies from bullets and fragments from exploding stuff with nothing more then our number 4 camo. -
I know that the body armour bit is off track (pun intended) but I just wanted to say that I couldn't agree more.
As for SM1 - having done installation of signal sets to these things, I totally appreciate the limited space constraints that Tyrano mentioned. Anyway, I believe there must be future plans that we are not privy to and just let it rest on the simple faith that those up there knows what's going on etc. -
Actually it does matter what type of roads are available. After all combat engineers cannot be there to hold your hand all the way.Originally posted by Atobe: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 ?
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.
Let's say the Malaysian NS highway is stressed to take say 50 tons. You send a convoy of MBTs, usually 60-70 tons combat weight, do you know what you are going to get?
Highway of stuck iron. Sure the first few tanks are going to get through. Don't hold your breathe for the last few?
BTW, Hitler made the same mistake when he decided to check out the Russian scenary. -
If you will notice, the Peninsular Malaysian NS highway is actually laid in concrete almost throughout its entire length, and certain sections laid over AGAIN with asphalt (but concrete remains below).Originally posted by touchstone_2000:Actually it does matter what type of roads are available. After all combat engineers cannot be there to hold your hand all the way.
Let's say the Malaysian NS highway is stressed to take say 50 tons. You send a convoy of MBTs, usually 60-70 tons combat weight, do you know what you are going to get?
Highway of stuck iron. Sure the first few tanks are going to get through. Don't hold your breathe for the last few?
BTW, Hitler made the same mistake when he decided to check out the Russian scenary.
The existing traffic is quite heavy along certain sections (especially between Malacca, Seramban and Kuala Lumpur), with occassional low loaders bearing over 90 ton loads at times, and frequently truck traffic bearing loads of 10 to 30 tons - even when most of the traffic are running on rubber tires.
With the ground pressure of MBT averaging between 0.77 kg/cm2 to 1.08 kg/cm2 - (see reference sites below) , there is little problem for any SAF MBT running up the length of the concrete highway of Peninsula Malaysia.
Even if the concrete is to break up, it will still provide a layer of broken stones that can still provide a base foundation for the MBT.
In any case, the tracks of the MBT provide itself a roadway on which its road wheels run, and this is how tanks are designed to operate on soft soil.
It was the over confidence of Hitler who blindly believed his mighty 'wermacht' will 'blitzkrieg' and overwhelm the supposedly weak Red Army in short time. He underestimated the national pride of the Russians that provided such stiff resistance, that the German time table had to be extended into winter.
The winter conditions bogged down the German infantry, and made the tanks useless in the deep snow of Russian winter; while the German logistics could not provide enough winter wear and maintenance support to keep the German man and equipment working through the deep freezing Russian Winter, and caused the debacle that occurred.
The defeat of Hitler's adventure into Russia was not due to his MBT being snow bound, but due to the unexpected length of the campaign that stretched into winter, and the little preparation to fight a war in winter.
Soft soil condition in Peninsula Malaysia can be about the same as those encountered during land reclamation works in Singapore, in which tracked CATERPILLAR bull dozers have to encounter.
Most CAT bull dozers used in land reclamation vary in size, with the biggest unit weighing about 60 tons. The constant running over of the soft soil also help to compact the soil. It is only when the CAT Operator becomes careless and move beyond the safe distance that the machine will get bogged in soft ground.
At least, when the SAF Armoured Unit move out, there will always be the armoured recovery vehicle to provide a 'helping hand' even if the Combat Engineers are not around to hold the Amoured hand.
US Abrams M1A2
Combat Weight: 63 tons
Ground Pressure 15.4 psi (1.08 kg/cm2)
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/specs.html
http://www.periscope1.com/demo/weapons/gcv/tanks/w0003593.html
China T-96 MBT
Combat Weight: 48 tons
Ground Pressure: 0.77 kg/cm2
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type96.asp
Russian T-90 MBT
Combat Weight: 46.5 tons
Ground Pressure: 0.87 kg/cm2
http://www.tanksim.com/topic3.htm -
OK, SM-1 is dead.
But the years operating that thing must have counted for something? SM-1 must have demonstrated some attributes that made us use it in such large numbers? Ok, cheap cheap aside.
Autoloaders? 75mm maybe nothing today, but I'm told it's trajectory is so flat, FCS not really needed - just point and shoot. Oscillating turrets?
At least we know what we want in a tropical FSV, (armour and horsepower to push it aside) right? Ok maybe what we want may not be what's really needed in 'war'.......
SM-1 vs Sherman -> Mobility versus Protection
With TECHNOLOGY I guess it's no longer a tradeoff between the two, example LECLERC.
But at least the French see the value of keeping them nimble in small low profile packages!
If the replacement is going to be a Bionix variant, then I don't see it coming any smaller(taller) OR nimbler. -
When the SM1 was introduced, anti-tank weapons were not as advanced or common as they are now. Our potential opponents' infantry only were able to defeat its frontal armor with company-level weapons or above. Nowadays, they can defeat its frontal armor with section-level weapons and above. Like that, might as well have no armor! Times have changed since the 1960s and the SM1's day in the sun is over.
It's like asking why the Germans in WWII were so stupid as to use the Panther tank when nowadays even our SM1 can kill it -- it's two different time periods, two different levels of technology, two different worlds. The Panther was truly mighty in its day, now it's pathetic. Same with our dear old SM1. It's not the 60's anymore.
The question now is whether there is any possible replacement. In order to be a viable tank nowadays, you need a certain amount of armor X, which means the tank will need to be at least a certain weight and size Y. I suspect that at present, Y is too big. A tank that has enough protection to survive will be too big and heavy to be useful in our terrain. That is the probable reason why there is such a delay in finding a replacement for the SM1 -- there may be no possible replacement at present.
The Bionix already uses special armor which is more than ten times more protective than normal steel on a weight basis. It is still not mobile enough, according to Fairyland. We might have to wait for some massive improvement in armor material technology before armor becomes light enough that a replacement for SM1 can be built.
Until then, the SM1 needs to change tactics to become an assault gun or tank destroyer, not a tank. It cannot expose itself to fire, even from infantry. It has to use range and terrain to protect itself, and refrain from assaulting. Not very different from a LSV with a RCL or ATGM
Basically, maneuver warfare might be impossible in SEA currently, except by light forces.
I think the SAF might change to an MBT-based doctrine instead. Straight up the middle with thousands of tonnes of fire-breathing metal. Straight into landmines, obstacles, ambushes and enemy fortifications. American-style attrition warfare. Mini Fulda Gap in SEA. Ugh. -
Which was why I asked those who served as tank crews, armored techs and mech infantry on whether the SM-1 follows them into the thick folage between the dense trees of the woods or does it transverse along clearings in the jungle floor only.Originally posted by dkhoo:Until then, the SM1 needs to change tactics to become an assault gun or tank destroyer, not a tank. It cannot expose itself to fire, even from infantry. It has to use range and terrain to protect itself, and refrain from assaulting. Not very different from a LSV with a RCL or ATGM Basically, maneuver warfare might be impossible in SEA currently, except by light forces.
SAF tankees would know that tanks travel along clearings faster (sans muddy situations) than in the woods because of gentler terrain and less obstructions. But I should think clearings are also prime locations for enemies to setup anti-armor ambushes.
What you know, they will know also.
If the infantry needs to enter the thick woods to engage the enemy or secure an objective, they would need heavy fire support. The trees in SEA jungles are so closely packed that transversing it's turrent would be a problem for the SM-1. So can it enter the thick woods and still perform well? -
yup, our sm1 am able to perform some bashing....what i know is that tanks can knock down trees...done training in tekong with tanks.Originally posted by Laplace:Hey armor people!
I've got two uni buddies from Sungei Gedong and they told me the reason SAF is still using the AMX-13/SM-1 and its 75mm is because of its size.
I know the main prob down here in the tropics is the very dense jungle. So do the tanks navigate and maneuvre through the woods, in between trees and among thick undergrowth or do they roll about over clearings in the jungle floor? -
It's like asking why the Germans in WWII were so stupid as to use the Panther tank when nowadays even our SM1 can kill it -- it's two different time periods, two different levels of technology, two different worlds. The Panther was truly mighty in its day, now it's pathetic. Same with our dear old SM1. It's not the 60's anymore.
Errhahahahahahaha the panther would whoop the SM1's ass honestly.The Patton maybe not but the SM1 most certainly! -
Yes! But the SM1 would have run out his sights before he can load!Originally posted by |-|05|:Errhahahahahahaha the panther would whoop the SM1's ass honestly.The Patton maybe not but the SM1 most certainly!
Mobility versus Protection -> French versus British -> AMX30 versus Chieftains
Germans thought they had the best compromise with their Leopards?