Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
You misread my post liao.
The point is, we cannot get protection in a light tank that allows it to absorb APFSDS and the like. That is true.
But the idea is, are we getting enough protection that we SHOULD be getting? Can our SM1 tanks repel LAWS? RPGs and other battlefield threats that with out weight considerations, modern technology can now protect against?
Can our current SM1 carry a gun that is capable of defeating MBTs? Which current technology can now provide a light tank?
Can our SM1 shoot on the move? Which long has been possible for light tanks?
Is our SM1 as mobile as it should be? An important consideration considering the only thing preventing it from being toast is its speed. Can modern technology make a light tank do better?
The answer to all of the above question is NO. The truth is, the SM1 is way outclassed and virtually obsolute when it comes to the technologies that have been developed for AFVs for its weight class, and worse, it can hardly do its job given a puny 75mm gun and armour that can along protect from small arms.
It can be argued that a technical with an 84 mounted might be more cost effective. Might as well dump all the armour on the SM1, given its nothing more then a half-measure eating up weight anyway!
If we can't use MBTs, the very least is that we get our tankies into a proper light tank. Technology existed for the Americans back in WW2 to use tanks far better then their M4 Sherman, but they did not, and they bled and suffered needlessly for it.
From a technical/design stand-point (again), we can achieve, and have already fulfilled, the fundamental elements of firepower and mobility in the class of vehicles that we have of 'indigenous' origin,
the real difficulty is forever the element of protection.
This will extend definitely to any development of a 'light' tank or tank destroyer of our own undertaking, and somewhat degraded in terms of the ability to attain the goal with respect to our current efforts put into the vehicles we have at the moment.
As highlighted before that we are only as capable as how deep the local military's pockets are, we can only make do with application of available protective technology rather than to develop new technology from ground up.
Therefore what I am saying is that, for tank capability, the qualities:
mobility (speed, range, weight) and firepower (gun calibre, ammo lethality, sensors, FCS and even BMS) - the answers are all out there for us to mix and match to our best fit.
Things under protection like weight and volume of conventional protection (active & passive armour) are the main killers to ourselves, according to required and intended threat level expected. Can only wish for real breakthroughs in the radical areas, like electric/electromagnetic armour, plastic armour, transparent armour and the like....