Replacement for our light tanks and MBT?
-
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.
Here's a bit of trivia. Interestingly, the M50 75mm gun on the SM1s traces its ancestry to the Kwk 43 7.5cm high velocity gun used on German Panthers. In its day, the Kwk 43 had one of the highest muzzle velocities among 1940s era tank guns.
david -
Actually I believe the real reason why we still keep these hunk of junks around is because the SAF never really intended to commit to or get a credible armoured unit capacity, we are relying more on our Ultras and Bionixes to get in the shots. The SM1? It's just a mobile, virtually unprotected outmoded 75mm gun that is toast if its caught alone. A dude with an RPG-7 can probably dish out more firepower that that gun.Originally posted by Fairyland: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?
Autoloaders? That revoving thing on the SM1 is a liability. It's stored beside you, holds only a few rounds, and you have to get out of the tank to get additional shells to load that thing back up. Penetration to the virtually unarmoured turret means that the autoloader almost always goes kaboom and guess what happens to the tankies? No need fire suppression system, you can say your last rites before riding it out to battle liao.
That oscillating turret is certainly inferior to normal gun mounts. Probably the only reason why they implemented it is because the hunk of junk autoloader could not fit in the turret when mounted on a normal pivot and needed the whole turret to move with it. Probably the light armour of that 'tank' made it possible.
There are no real advantages to the SM1 really, when compared to other light "AGS" systems like the Scorpion or the XM8. That thing is junk.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'.......
It's great to keep things small and nimble, but technology has it limits. Sure I would want a 15 ton tank that can fight and take damage like a 70 ton Abrams but that just does not work currently. It cannot be avoided, we need a system that will inherently be bigger and not as nimble. It is a fool's dream. The truth is, the SM1 is a ridiculusly LIGHT tank, and we should never pin our on getting units like it. We need heavier metal.
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.
But then again, it would be far, far more useful, and I think that's the bottom line that matters. No point going 100kph when you can't outrun APFSDs. -
I get the message loud and clear - SM1 days are over.
If it's junk (and I don't mean to disagree), very very expensive to assign 3 men to continue operating them.
Waste of precious precious manpower.
The oscillating turret concept can be a way to isolate the crew from the ammo if you can housed all the rounds and autoloader within.......then you have more problems with stabilisation, if at all feasible!
Also the lower half if shaped correctly can be a form of spaced armour to protect the gun/ammo/autoloader upper housing.
With a ball turret FCU(mounted on a elevated mast!), the crew can sit safely in the (NBC) vehicle chassis. 3 men crew - driver, commander with BMS receiving battle picture from UAV etc and gunner directly controlling the FCU in charge of 50m zone around them. -
The SM1 was useful as a Tank/AFV destroyer since our nearest neighbour only operate light tanks. But this will change when modern MBTs is coming into the scene.
Two things are going against it,
1. the weak amour will not able to handle the proliferation of modern portable AT missiles. This was happening for the last 15 years for the region, but could be countered with appropiate infantry support.
2.The 75mm gun is simply to weak to go against any modern tanks especially those with ERA/applique armour.
Therefore we urgently need a new tank to be deployed in next 2-3 years that have:
1. Armour protection against at least up to RPG, a better crew survive system like fire suppresion system & layout of ammo.
2. A gun to be at least 105mm, of course the best will be a low recoil120mm gun.With gun stabilisation to fire on the move. The best with a autoloader due to our manpower constraint.
3.Mobility: Speed to be as fast as the Bionix.
4.For our unique situation, it should be under 30 tons, with a width below 3m. The ground pressure should be around 1 kg/sq cm.This of course go against Pt 1-2.
5.With as many component commonality as possible with our Bionix so to have better logistics support.
6.Highly digitise for NCW concept.
My two cents worth.
CHARGE!!!
-
what if the SAF "tanks" aint supposed to be use as tanks per se in other military powers...
perhaps the AMX-13 is simply used to augment the firepower of an armored units against enemy APC, AIFV and other thin armor vehicles...
while the real enemy MBTs would be taken care of by SPIKE, Hellfire, 155mm shell from arty or AGM-64? or maybe the rumored tempest?
i mean... maybe SAF consider the AMX-13 as simply a direct fire support weapon..
if so... its not too far fetch to consider a bionix with lots of additional fire support system as a potential AMX-13 replacement. -
AMX-13 is used to punch thru enemy lines. That is what is practised in training. Hence Dont think it is a direct support weapon. The ultras fulfill that role if i am not wrong.Originally posted by tripwire:what if the SAF "tanks" aint supposed to be use as tanks per se in other military powers...
perhaps the AMX-13 is simply used to augment the firepower of an armored units against enemy APC, AIFV and other thin armor vehicles...
while the real enemy MBTs would be taken care of by SPIKE, Hellfire, 155mm shell from arty or AGM-64? or maybe the rumored tempest?
i mean... maybe SAF consider the AMX-13 as simply a direct fire support weapon..
if so... its not too far fetch to consider a bionix with lots of additional fire support system as a potential AMX-13 replacement. -
I have always thought AMX-13 SM1's primary role is to give direct Fire Support! Mainly to blast those entrenched enemies in kampong houses or trench holes.Originally posted by rancour5:AMX-13 is used to punch thru enemy lines. That is what is practised in training. Hence Dont think it is a direct support weapon. The ultras fulfill that role if i am not wrong.
That's the main reason, I felt SAF can keep it going and also why an upgrade for the guns was not considered for so many years.
SM-1 was never meant to face any serious armour right?
If indeed AMX-13 is used to punch thru enemy lines, then.......what's the Tempest for? -
rancour5, are you a tankee? Specifically an SM1 crewman? I'd like to ask know enemy forces are simulated in armor exercises. What kinds of weapons and tactics do the enemy employ? How do they score hits on your tanks (MILES?) and how do you determine what effects the hits have (penetrated or not)? What happens if a tank is penetrated by fire, is that simulated in the exercise?
The SM1 is a good vehicle for exploiting a breakthrough due to its mobility and range, but I do not think it is terribly good for creating a breakthrough. Unless the breakthrough is created by the Tempests... -
Our MILES system is nothing like the american ones, in fact, ours is so zia lat that to destroy tanks we have to roll dice.
-
part of the blame lies with lazy tankees who can't be bothered to zero their MILES lah...
part of the misconception is that u just strap it on and it beeps when the laser hits... in actual fact, the zeroing is tedious and often sloppily done... thats why there is an overemphasis placed on the exercise controllers. i've always found that a rather arbitrary and sometimes unfair way to evaluate "kills"...
but there is merit to the argument that they need to work on a better MILES system and i did hear that they were working on one using GPS and stuff... dunno true or not. -
actually training for breakthrough is such that for ememy tanks, tankees have to aim for the ememy tank's weak spot. such as base of turret. Ah.dont think i am allowed to give any info regarding weapons and tactics but sufficnet to know weapons are simlated soviet-era.Dont want MSD on my door.Originally posted by dkhoo:rancour5, are you a tankee? Specifically an SM1 crewman? I'd like to ask know enemy forces are simulated in armor exercises. What kinds of weapons and tactics do the enemy employ? How do they score hits on your tanks (MILES?) and how do you determine what effects the hits have (penetrated or not)? What happens if a tank is penetrated by fire, is that simulated in the exercise?
The SM1 is a good vehicle for exploiting a breakthrough due to its mobility and range, but I do not think it is terribly good for creating a breakthrough. Unless the breakthrough is created by the Tempests...
Actually, an Australian Tankee who came for an exercise commented on why not use it for ambush since it is mobile and lightly armoured. That is it can shoot and skoot. None, i am not a tankee but i from armour.
And yes dice plays an important part of the miles set. -
Hi All,
Interesting topics at :
But running-in problems aside, the shift to Strykers marks the beginning of the end of the historic role heavy tanks, such as the Abrams and IsraelÂ’s Merkava 3 and 4, have played on the battlefield. Experts believe these 70-ton behemoths-on-tracks are being reduced to the dinosaurs of modern combat and that the 19-ton, eight-wheeled Stryker is poised to leap into the breach.
http://www.debka.com/
Happy reading..
regards, -
I've just read an article recommending the IBCTs change from wheeled Strykers to M113A3s(yeh.....
) and M8 
Reason being there is little to no advantage for Strykers. Claim that a force comprising the M113A3 and M8 can outfight a armoured force if deployed smartly.
It's on the www.strategypage.com
MBTs on the way out and M113s still going strong?
Mobility wins over Protection? -
are you a tankee yourself?? and how do you know tankees are lazy?Originally posted by CX:part of the blame lies with lazy tankees who can't be bothered to zero their MILES lah...
part of the misconception is that u just strap it on and it beeps when the laser hits... in actual fact, the zeroing is tedious and often sloppily done... thats why there is an overemphasis placed on the exercise controllers. i've always found that a rather arbitrary and sometimes unfair way to evaluate "kills"...
but there is merit to the argument that they need to work on a better MILES system and i did hear that they were working on one using GPS and stuff... dunno true or not.
-
btw, bionx and sm1 are using the same engines?!
-
Bionix engine far more powerful...
And no, 8-wheelers are not well suited to leap into the breach created by MBTs, they have serious vulnerablity issues that proponents of wheeled units tend to gloss over when pushing them forward to front line duty, namely durability and protection. I believe if future light units have to take up the role of MBTs, they will probably be still on tracks. -
nope. same company but different hp. sm1 same as ultra i think is only 275 or 290hpOriginally posted by tiggersgd:btw, bionx and sm1 are using the same engines?!
bionix is 475 hp. -
nope. same company but different hp. sm1 same as ultra i think is only 275 or 290hpOriginally posted by tiggersgd:btw, bionx and sm1 are using the same engines?!
bionix is 475 hp. tt's y i think is kind of stupid putting bionix and sm1 together cos sm1 leads and slows down the advance. -
SM1 in it's oresent form is old. But.......there's nothing that can fill-in it's shoes? Maybe only German Wiesels.Originally posted by rancour5:nope. same company but different hp. sm1 same as ultra i think is only 275 or 290hp
bionix is 475 hp. tt's y i think is kind of stupid putting bionix and sm1 together cos sm1 leads and slows down the advance.
Bionix maybe 200hp more powerful BUT it is heavier - lower power to weight ratio AND higher PSI on their tracks. All that with Bushmaster 25mm albeit firing depleted uranium shells?
You are right - they are different animals. Take away one and replace with another (bionix variant?)........you loose something! -
See this link www.geocities.com/theoreillyreport/coverpage.htm for Victor o'Reily's report on the weaknesses of Stryker...Originally posted by Fairyland:I've just read an article recommending the IBCTs change from wheeled Strykers to M113A3s(yeh..... ) and M8
Reason being there is little to no advantage for Strykers. Claim that a force comprising the M113A3 and M8 can outfight a armoured force if deployed smartly.
It's on the www.strategypage.com
MBTs on the way out and M113s still going strong?
Mobility wins over Protection?
Just to confirm. This is the tender that ST went in with our Bionix right? But lost out to General Dynamics...I thot ours was much better than the Stryker anyway. -
I believe only the Bionix Lite plus an elongated M113 made it to the last round for tracked vehicles.
I have not come across any document of the ranking of those vehicles, but recalled one of the vehicle's tracks came off in one of the trials......
National interests will probably see the M113A3 get in IF they change their minds. -
but the thing is bionix is only 22tons while sm1 is already 18 tons. which means that power to weight ratio still favors bionix. All in all, would prefer to see bionix leading the charge. Can survive better.Originally posted by Fairyland:SM1 in it's oresent form is old. But.......there's nothing that can fill-in it's shoes? Maybe only German Wiesels.
Bionix maybe 200hp more powerful BUT it is heavier - lower power to weight ratio AND higher PSI on their tracks. All that with Bushmaster 25mm albeit firing depleted uranium shells?
You are right - they are different animals. Take away one and replace with another (bionix variant?)........you loose something! -
What we need is a tracked armoured unit that has enough protection to take infantry AT fire and most kinds of punishment up to MBT main guns, carry a direct fire weapon sufficent to kill MBTs, as well as multipurpose missiles that it can use to kill almost any kind of target. Yes... that'll be good...
-
I will like to draw the attention of all military nuts to the fact that AMX-13SM1 is NOT supposed to engage MBTs! We mainly act as direct fire support and provide defence to the AI vehicles in an ABG. I am very puzzled when i see people comparing the SM1 with MBTs like the M1A2 Abrams,they are of two totally different classes with totally different roles! I am very sure that other vehicles in our inventory can effectively take on enemy MBTs. As for the insufficiency of the SM1 armour,don't worry we do have ways to solve this problems. Gentlemen please understand that i CANNOT provide evidence/information to support my claims as these information are not supposed to be public knowledge. Those that have access to these infomation will be able to agree with me. Rest assure that our SM1 is not as vulnerable or as obsolete as it seems. Just remember that what appears on the surface may not be the whole package. We have special arrangements during war.
-
Applique armour? Even with that can it survive a direct hit from an RPG? What about it's intractable design flaws? Are they just going to go away?
If we want to use the SM1 as a light tank fine, but there are many other types of light tanks that can fufil the SM1 roles all the better.