Tank Tactics
-
I've been reading up a lot on WW2, particularly tactics used by Panzer commanders. �These tactics were pioneered by �Heinz �Guderian a german general.
Guderian proposed that tanks should be used in a concentrated mass instead of being spread all across the frontline. �Using a tanks mobility, an armored force can easily puncture the frontline defence while a second or third force can flank the enemy position thus allowing a pincer like manouver. This action should be done quickly and swiftly to achieve surprise and to prevent the enemy from regrouping. This strategy is part of what we call the "Blitzkrieg".
As far as I know, the SAF has a big armored force and its tanks are highly mobile. In event of an armed conflict close to home, an enemy may have to come down the malaysia peninsula. What i'm wondering is... whether this tactics can be applied here as the jungles north of us are pretty dense obviously hindering movement. Airpower alone cannot win a conflict in this part of the world ( think vietnam ). I would like anyone to share any proven or theoretical strats specific to waging war over jungle terrain. -
i believe that for jungle warfare in these parts, a small light and mobile force is essential to victory. hence i think the best units to have are small "sticks" of highly well trained soldiers capable of operating in isolation for up to 2 weeks.
-
In the event of a jungle warfare, only small light vehicles like motorcycles and the light strike vehicle has a chance of manovering ... the turrets of the tanks will stand no chance against the think trunk of trees in forest.
Consider the use of guards / comandos as well as infantry as infiltration troops and use the hit and run technique.
-
So your suggestion puts tanks out of the picture and instead puts more emphasis on small well trained groups of men. Then wats the point of all those apcs and ifvs? amx-10s?
We dont have a large regular force and going to ns plus reservist every year doesnt exactly constitute as "well trained" enough. -
tanks should not be place out of the picture. In fact they are impt as well. however their usage is much greatly reduce due to terrain impedence. They can still be used as support deployment.... also not forgetting out artillery units and Airforce
-
emphasis dun mean totally ignoring armoured forces.Originally posted by V1NS@niTY:So your suggestion puts tanks out of the picture and instead puts more emphasis on small well trained groups of men. Then wats the point of all those apcs and ifvs? amx-10s?
We dont have a large regular force and going to ns plus reservist every year doesnt exactly constitute as "well trained" enough. -
think we becoming more like the US. Just air raid the targets and the infantry go in and sweep the ground. Dont think I'll be scared seeing AMX-13 coming at me lor. They not like M1 or T-80.
-
yup. deployment support and maybe light armour support as demoed by e japs.Originally posted by stoner:tanks should not be place out of the picture. In fact they are impt as well. however their usage is much greatly reduce due to terrain impedence. They can still be used as support deployment.... also not forgetting out artillery units and Airforce -
AGREED!!! WAAHAHAHAOriginally posted by Bochupi:think we becoming more like the US. Just air raid the targets and the infantry go in and sweep the ground. Dont think I'll be scared seeing AMX-13 coming at me lor. They not like M1 or T-80. -
Is what is written sixty years ago for Central European Terrain still applicable now in the jungle terrain/urban landscape in South East Asia?Originally posted by V1NS@niTY:I've been reading up a lot on WW2, particularly tactics used by Panzer commanders. �These tactics were pioneered by �Heinz �Guderian a german general.
Guderian proposed that tanks should be used in a concentrated mass instead of being spread all across the frontline. �Using a tanks mobility, an armored force can easily puncture the frontline defence while a second or third force can flank the enemy position thus allowing a pincer like manouver. This action should be done quickly and swiftly to achieve surprise and to prevent the enemy from regrouping. This strategy is part of what we call the "Blitzkrieg".
As far as I know, the SAF has a big armored force and its tanks are highly mobile. In event of an armed conflict close to home, an enemy may have to come down the malaysia peninsula. What i'm wondering is... whether this tactics can be applied here as the jungles north of us are pretty dense obviously hindering movement. Airpower alone cannot win a conflict in this part of the world ( think vietnam ). I would like anyone to share any proven or theoretical strats specific to waging war over jungle terrain. -
From what ive thought out so far, a hostile armored force shouldnt pose too much of a threat due to the terrain. and I believe the airforce and our tank force can easily handle that threat. I always considered the tanks we have to be better suited to city fighting or point defence... never for large scale manouvering. But what if the hostile army has superior numbers in regular foot soldiers and are more highly trained?
In WW2 along the eastern front... Germany found that the russians were the masters of the terrain, often digging in so well... it nullified the heavy bombardment of the germans. Only through superior manouvering could the germans gain victory over the russians. And tanks played a very crucial part( the terrian was more open there).
Fast forward to vietnam, the americans bombarded the vietcong like siao, yet they survived and beat the americans through superior use of terrain. So back to the question.... can we face up to a larger force of soldiers more well-trained in jungle warfare? -
Yes ..... call Osama and send in the nukes !
-
well let me put it this way. the victors of WW2 were numerically superior. Germany's enitre tank production for WW2 was smaller than the tank production for a single American model, the Sherman.
The Germans had superior tatics against the Soviets, but the soviets had more men.
no matter how good your equipment, how good your tatics are, sometimes its the numbers that make the difference. and we? our numbers are a joke. -
To spencer. Of course it cannot be applied totally because of the terrain difference. But most of the tactics used then are what modern tactics have derived from. i'm interested in how these old tactics have adapted to suit warfare in this modern age and in our local terrain.
-
Actually, I believe that Germany could have honestly won the war if hitler had more foresight and flexibility. they wasted too much on producing super weapons and making some stupid decisions( cant remember the events, have to read up again but this is not the point of the discussion). If russia wasnt brought into the picture in WW2, things may have been a lot different.
-
Btw... any experts on WW2 in the pacific theatre? I'm interested at how the americans drove the japanese out, especially from the phillipines and the pacific islands. Could be more related, as the terrain is roughly the same.
-
HENG@, you are obviously not familiar with the numbers. We heavily outnumber any potential opponent in every category except warships. We have more men, light tanks, MBTs, IFVs, artillery, anti-aircraft systems, fighters, helicopters, logistics support, etc than either our northern or our southern neighbor, sometimes more than both combined. Our systems are also arguably superior. Go and do more research.
Tank tactics are heavily terrain dependant. The problem is that the terrain of the Malay peninsula from an operational POV is not in the public domain. I am sure that MINDEF spends great effort keeping up to date, but we don't know what they know. We don't know how much is jungle, plantation, paddies, swamps, etc. We don't know what kind of roads are where or how strong the bridges are. We don't know where the "go" and "no go" terrain is for different types of vehicles.
But we can guess based on the actions of MINDEF. All recent SAF armored vehicles have had a width limit of 3m and weight limit of 30 tonnes. That leads me to think that, based on MINDEF terrain studies, vehicles of those parameters will be able to maneuver effectively on the peninsula. Maybe the peninsula is crisscrossed with 3m wide dirt tracks or the plantations have trees 3m apart? Maybe most of the bridges can take 30 tonnes?
Also, our tankers train in a certain type of armored warfare. This allows us to guess the doctrine of the SAF. It is not wise to reveal too much about this, but they certainly do not intend to dig in and fight in point defense. Again, it is clear that the SAF has a plan, hopefully based on accurate technical intelligence. -
in reply to your qns....
i've been through training that involves battalion size of armored forces....this involves maneuvering in jungles (almost similar to ours but much more spaced out....something like m'sia's). one particular exercise involves an ambush where we formed up in line formation before the final assault.
but then this exercise is against a company sized of enemy with no tank or little tanks support. there are, however, some m113 with flame thrower etc on patrol in their defended vicinity....
exercise being "unreal", i really doubt the effectiveness of the amoured force as only blanks are used. but overall, the size that came out from ambush is impressive and i wouldn't want to be on the other side....if it were the real thing. -
hehe...ya lor....we got more numbers in planes, armour vehicles and ships cause it's the spirit of us to buy more. The spirit of kiasuism.
just that we are small in land mass but we win in number of equiptment. -
hmmm very interesting. So once again, tanks are back in the picture but used in a different form of armored warfare. this discussion isnt only based on the strength of our northern or southern neighbours( i was thinking maybe further up north? ). Jungle I believe sort of neutralizes our technological advantage, i'm thinking vietnam again. So basic troop training i feel is the MOST important aspect in winning a war here like the japs in WW2.
I am thinking our artillery will play a very very large part in any offensive. We need sustained bombardments to keep invaders out coupled with air strikes. that way we can clear out large areas of jungle and make our tech. advantage more effective. Maybe thats y SAF interested in MRLS last time becuz they could devastate a whole map grid. -
Dont think we are allowed to buy MLRS lah...it's sort of an offensive weapon and our nation too small to get such weapon. If we really buy ah....think the neighbours will complain like siao..Originally posted by V1NS@niTY:hmmm very interesting. So once again, tanks are back in the picture but used in a different form of armored warfare. this discussion isnt only based on the strength of our northern or southern neighbours( i was thinking maybe further up north? ). Jungle I believe sort of neutralizes our technological advantage, i'm thinking vietnam again. So basic troop training i feel is the MOST important aspect in winning a war here like the japs in WW2.
I am thinking our artillery will play a very very large part in any offensive. We need sustained bombardments to keep invaders out coupled with air strikes. that way we can clear out large areas of jungle and make our tech. advantage more effective. Maybe thats y SAF interested in MRLS last time becuz they could devastate a whole map grid.
-
according to an earlier thread the MAF has procured and operationalised them liao.Originally posted by Bochupi:Dont think we are allowed to buy MLRS lah...it's sort of an offensive weapon and our nation too small to get such weapon. If we really buy ah....think the neighbours will complain like siao.. -
MAF big country leh...so they say buy for self defence still acceptable cause if they show from penang down south it'll still hit malaysia. If we buy and shoot from changi towards the west donno where the rocket will land leh...Originally posted by wuming78:according to an earlier thread the MAF has procured and operationalised them liao.
-
the ability of troops to handle equipments are foremost important for any armies. imagine, having superior technological advanced weapons but not able to execute it to its fullest extent. its a total mis-match of man and machines. >>>out of topic but
-
The best defense is a great offense.[/quote]