Tank Tactics
-
ya lor....just see what israel did, but in the end people will say you are the aggressor instead of the victim.Originally posted by V1NS@niTY:The best defense is a great offense.[/quote]
-
Btw... pls keep the malaysian MRLS out of the picture from now. I want this discussion to be based purely on tactics that are effective in our terrain especially involving our armour. thanx
P.S.
i'm still waiting for a WW2 pacific theatre expert to show up.Anyone? Anyone? -
in ww2, japs are more superior b'cos they've been constant in waging war on other countries. this contributed to their troops being seasoned for war and thus snowballed their victories. japs also introduced tanks into the dense jungles of malaya peninsular during that time when the british thought it is not feasible and a waste of resources as they're also having their own fight in the european theatre and else where...thus japs are able to advance swiftly and are more mobile. (saw pics of jap soldiers riding bicycles > mobility)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.
thus, in modern tank warfare, i believe tanks need the most basic form of fighting support = the infantry/armored infantry. other elements like the air force (umbrella cover) as well as artillery (shock and stay put) etc to complement it for a successful campaign.
this combination is common even in ww2 era....just the execution and men/machines involved that is the critical factor in winning the campaign. -
Israel is in this sorry state becuz the jews and the muslims there cant settle their differences.. nuff said. Now back to discussion. I was saying earlier that clearing out large areas of jungle can help us. I was thinking maybe a radical new way of waging war here.
Create a super "firestorm" artillery system.... land based. Able to totally burn out miles and miles of jungle and vegetation. Of course have limited range ... maybe 50-60 km. Not only will ALL enemy positions be flushed near our island, it will allow our superior numbers of troops and tanks to manouver. no open terrain? problem solved......
Of course such a weapon system would strain relations with neighbouring countries. But.... it fits in nicely with our "doomsday" like deterrence. -
do u really want a war to happen to prove you wrong?Originally posted by dkhoo: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.
our force is a deterent, its not meant for winning the war. u may win the battle but it doesn't mean u'll win the war. We have no resources to speak of, our forces may have more of any equipment among any armed force, we do not have the luxury of being able to win any dragged out war. While we can have the best intelligence, having intelligence alone with an inadequate force is at best, to fight a delaying battle. The water problem alone will kill us outright. An army, no matter how advanced, still has basic needs to be fufilled.
I hope we are not so complacent as to overestimate our abilities, but to be realistic about the harsh realities of war. We may be able to delay long enough for international aid to arrive or we may not, its up to anyones guess. To have a sense of "sure-win" mindset and to overestimate oneself almost led to the downfall of the Israelis in the Yom Kippur War. -
fire is a good servant but a bad master....having this kind of fantasy weapon is no no as our own forces will kenna or worse prolong the battle which i don't think any army will want that.Originally posted by V1NS@niTY:Israel is in this sorry state becuz the jews and the muslims there cant settle their differences.. nuff said. Now back to discussion. I was saying earlier that clearing out large areas of jungle can help us. I was thinking maybe a radical new way of waging war here.
Create a super "firestorm" artillery system.... land based. Able to totally burn out miles and miles of jungle and vegetation. Of course have limited range ... maybe 50-60 km. Not only will ALL enemy positions be flushed near our island, it will allow our superior numbers of troops and tanks to manouver. no open terrain? problem solved......
Of course such a weapon system would strain relations with neighbouring countries. But.... it fits in nicely with our "doomsday" like deterrence. -
I just want to add that the japs trained extensively in taiwan and other tropical locations before attacking southeast asia. therefore they were not only combat experienced.... they were well climatised to the fighting conditions.
In a book by another german commander called "Panzer Battles". the author pointed out the failure of british armor in WW2. Because the british grouped the tanks with the infantry... the tanks were more for infantry support. this reduced the mobility of the tanks during an armed confrontation. Germany thought differently, they massed their tanks and each panzer force included its own logistics and supply division. So their tanks basically out manouvered the british becasue they were not hindered by their infantry.
I want to point out that the churchill tanks the brits used were heavily armored and slow, the german panzer IIIs and IIs were way weaker yet they won becuz they were used en masse and with superior mobility. -
I'm no tank expert(only good at cock-size comparison.....), but why u burn forest? Green ppl will appear at your doorstep if not careful.Originally posted by V1NS@niTY:Israel is in this sorry state becuz the jews and the muslims there cant settle their differences.. nuff said. Now back to discussion. I was saying earlier that clearing out large areas of jungle can help us. I was thinking maybe a radical new way of waging war here.
Create a super "firestorm" artillery system.... land based. Able to totally burn out miles and miles of jungle and vegetation. Of course have limited range ... maybe 50-60 km. Not only will ALL enemy positions be flushed near our island, it will allow our superior numbers of troops and tanks to manouver. no open terrain? problem solved......
Of course such a weapon system would strain relations with neighbouring countries. But.... it fits in nicely with our "doomsday" like deterrence.
This approach was adopted by the Americans in Vietnam with B-52s(biggest airborne cock around) and then spraying agent Orange posion to kill the vegetation. But not very effective leh.
Don't go against nature.....cannot win.
Mobility vs Protection -> Japs in WW2 IMHO showed us the answer is clear!
Armour only when you have the space and no choice to maneuver.....otherwise fast moving troop formations better. What good is their T90s if you don't see them?
I saw some very interesting vehicles and some funny looking bicycles too for airborne troops in one very vocal website.
BTW I think I saw a video footage of the ABG in live firing exercise in Wallaby. You don't want to be in the receiving end......provided their guns all fire off. -
regarding the "firestorm"weapon.... i was thinking launch first... burn out land.. THEN send troops... like that how to get collateral damage? only enemy kena right?
-
okok.... my stance on this fantasy weapon "firestorm" is that it remains as a defensive weapon. Limited range , and based in sg. If no one attacks us.... no reason to fire it right? I did think abt agent orange, that was chemical, i was thinking more of a mad tsunami of fire... raging across the land... burning all vegetation to dust in a matter of a few days or hours. Ok enuff firestom... it is not in line with the discussion, back to tactics.
-
it all depends on the execution and the strategy...this is what i want to emphasize....Originally posted by V1NS@niTY:I just want to add that the japs trained extensively in taiwan and other tropical locations before attacking southeast asia. therefore they were not only combat experienced.... they were well climatised to the fighting conditions.
In a book by another german commander called "Panzer Battles". the author pointed out the failure of british armor in WW2. Because the british grouped the tanks with the infantry... the tanks were more for infantry support. this reduced the mobility of the tanks during an armed confrontation. Germany thought differently, they massed their tanks and each panzer force included its own logistics and supply division. So their tanks basically out manouvered the british becasue they were not hindered by their infantry.
I want to point out that the churchill tanks the brits used were heavily armored and slow, the german panzer IIIs and IIs were way weaker yet they won becuz they were used en masse and with superior mobility.
yes, you were right in the tanks part but note that they are where when the battle took place? and during then, the bazookas aren't carried around or as mobile as nowadays....also, they don;t kill tanks remotely like what we do now....definitely these need to be discounted if you only want to talk abt past campaigns.
if you've watched Band of Brothers....remember the scene whereby the British tankers refused to fire at a cluster of buildings just b'cos there's an order to protect them?? but the panzers are hiding in between these said buildings waiting to ambush and kill their enemies. and who noticed the panzers??? the infantry elites....my guess is that if they've lots of bazookas with them at that time, they would have taken out these panzers, laughing. -
and btw, the british tankers were destroyed....
-
ok so tiggersgd... wat do you think then is the best way for us to use our armored and infantry forces effectively? Keeping in mind the points made previously...
-
btw i did watch the episode. even with bazookas they would have still lost. firstly... germans were already dug in. The allied force had :
A company of rangers
2 shermans ( in brit service called firefly)
2 cruiser tanks( i think )
germans:
1 panzer VI tiger ( holy shit)
1 panzer V jagdpanther AT gun ( could be panzer III ausf D?looks the same)
1-2 infantry light guns on tank chassis
lotsa german troops
the 101 and the brit armour walked into a well prepaed ambush that was heavily armed. So either way.... they sure die. -
sorry correcting earlier ,mistake... it wasnt a company of rangers but of 101 airborne. Paiseh
thinking of saving private ryan... -
HENG@, I never said anything about being aggressive to our neighbors. Of course peace is preferable under any circumstances. A war in the region would benefit no one. That is precisely why the SAF has to be so strong. Because we suffer from many strategic disadvantages, we must make up for them with technological, tactical and material advantages if the SAF is to be a credible deterrent. Any potential foe must realize that invasion of Singapore is futile, and that we have the armed strength to secure our interests in the region. If the SAF ever becomes too weak to be a credible deterrent, it will encourage diplomatic and ultimately military assault upon Singapore and lead to war. Hence, the stronger the SAF is, the more peaceful ASEAN will be. The conscript nature of the SAF helps ensure that she will not be used for illegitimate or aggressive purposes.
VINSANITY, I don't think completely destroying the jungles of the peninsula is possible or necessary. You don't seem to realize how big even a small country like Malaysia is -- a side effect of living in Singapore too much, maybe? Burning everything down would require catastrophic levels of force. Anyway, I don't think it is necessary, since our armored vehicles have probably been designed to pass through a good portion of the terrain they will encounter. Either that, or their doctrine has been written to be suitable for their capabilities.
After all, you don't have to slavishly follow the doctrine of Blitzkrieg or armored divisions, and burn down a whole jungle to do it. You create your doctrine according to your environment, then acquire equipment and train in accordance with your doctrine, revising the doctrine as circumstances change. If Blitzkrieg is impossible on the peninsula, then we will fight another way. Just because Guderian used it does not mean it is the word of God. -
okok the firestorm thingy was a stupid idea... but i thought it would be funny to bring up. I totally agree with you on the fact that blitzkrieg tactics cannot be fully followed here becuz.... its been 60+yrs.... and the terrain is different. what im interested in is how our armour is used.... when ppl bring up suggestions... i try to relate it to a similar wartime battle ( vietnam ww2 etcetc). Im not looking for a complete final answer, I just like to discuss abt this topic as i feel its very interesting..
-
we only have so many men we can conscript. as for realising an invasion of singapore is futile, its not futile if u're willing to play a high stakes game. if the loses are deemed acceptable, they'll come all the same, regardless of how strong we are, because its not a matter of winning or losing, its a matter of when.Originally posted by dkhoo:Any potential foe must realize that invasion of Singapore is futile, and that we have the armed strength to secure our interests in the region. If the SAF ever becomes too weak to be a credible deterrent, it will encourage diplomatic and ultimately military assault upon Singapore and lead to war. Hence, the stronger the SAF is, the more peaceful ASEAN will be. The conscript nature of the SAF helps ensure that she will not be used for illegitimate or aggressive purposes. -
dug in troops to the 101st is not a problem. the main problem for them and the rest passing that way are the tanks. that's y the 101st couldn't advance further.Originally posted by V1NS@niTY:btw i did watch the episode. even with bazookas they would have still lost. firstly... germans were already dug in. The allied force had :
A company of rangers
2 shermans ( in brit service called firefly)
2 cruiser tanks( i think )
germans:
1 panzer VI tiger ( holy shit)
1 panzer V jagdpanther AT gun ( could be panzer III ausf D?looks the same)
1-2 infantry light guns on tank chassis
lotsa german troops
the 101 and the brit armour walked into a well prepaed ambush that was heavily armed. So either way.... they sure die.
my point here is that tanks are supposed to be like tanks. being able to traverse and fight all ways have been the design of tanks. in that particular scene, we know that the british tanks are not as creative as the nazis. the panzers are well camouflaged and taken a very good guard point for the ambush.
infantry helped b'cos they're on the ground and not moving as fast. they also have more time to appreciate the ground and to quickly adjust to the fast moving circumstances. the tank comdr on the other hand, may not have these time luxury, thus judgement may be off somewhat. -
heng@, no offense. let's get some things right....Originally posted by HENG@:To have a sense of "sure-win" mindset and to overestimate oneself almost led to the downfall of the Israelis in the Yom Kippur War.
firstly, if i do get to see action, i'll go with the mindset of overcoming my foes and not of over-confidence, be it man or machine.
Israelis went to the Yom Kippur War with the mindset of overcoming their foes of more than 3 to 1. surely, they've got to be having a mindset of "sure-win". otherwise, this is plain suicidal...
of course, this conflict alone saw the biggest tanks fallen for the Israelis but they recovered quickly to recognise the mistake of not the "sure-win" mentality but rather the tactics that they employed are not suitable for that particular circumstance.
(i can only say God is truly on their side.) -
I won't be too sure about that. Our plans is to last less than a month. The supplies we have are sufficlent to do that. Beyond that, if help doent come, we are more or less finished anyway.Originally posted by HENG@:do u really want a war to happen to prove you wrong?
our force is a deterent, its not meant for winning the war. u may win the battle but it doesn't mean u'll win the war. We have no resources to speak of, our forces may have more of any equipment among any armed force, we do not have the luxury of being able to win any dragged out war. While we can have the best intelligence, having intelligence alone with an inadequate force is at best, to fight a delaying battle. The water problem alone will kill us outright. An army, no matter how advanced, still has basic needs to be fufilled.
I hope we are not so complacent as to overestimate our abilities, but to be realistic about the harsh realities of war. We may be able to delay long enough for international aid to arrive or we may not, its up to anyones guess. To have a sense of "sure-win" mindset and to overestimate oneself almost led to the downfall of the Israelis in the Yom Kippur War. -
at rancour.... some claimed that SAF planned on holding out for less then a month in war...
was this based on supplies stockpile availability stat until resupply... or was this war scenario based on fighting a major or regional superpower??
with SAF strength... few nations would be able to force us to fight in a corner with the exception of countries like India, japan, PRC and their likes...
so... can we have some clarification??
i mean... holding less then a month is the most stupid argument without further information on who the enemy is... if the enemy only has 1 BN.... we also surrender after 3 weeks with our 5 division plus Air and NAvy?? stupid right? -
tanks or armoured vechicles are more for occupation den actual war. seems like the correct trend is point offensive and den occupation.
den the one on supply i think is not nessary the size of the enemy but the enagement rate of the units. i think they assume the units are enaged for a certain number of hours like that to calculate.
the wat firestorm? ermh... we are definately not going to tell anyone we are coming right? and we also dont have a ermh... "overrunning" capacity like the superpowers.
i think the americans tactics in the pacific is still applicable. "island hopping". engage only if really required if not just isolate them.
what u think? -
the bottomline is:
we will get overrun if we are attacked. its not a matter of "if" but a matter of time. -
i think we're all going off topic now. The point of this thread was just to discuss tactics that can be employed in any armed conflicts around this region. I was interested in "Blitzkrieg" tactics and was wondering whether it is possible to implement such strategies in our regional context ( we have a lot of jungle terrain ).. with an emphasis on armored warfare. A lot of ppl have come forward and offered lots of thoughtful suggestions. This thread is not about the defense of singapore... how long we will last...blah blah..
Ok back to discussion... i dont think island hopping is feasible.... unless you take over enemy airfields or are talking abt helicopters. The americans were successful in doing this becuz they had a chain of pacific islands to hop from. And the aircraft then were a lot more rugged..... i cant think of any combat aircraft with roughfield capability in this region... cept maybe thailand with harriers. And... aircraft had to island hop last time becuz of the lack of range.. now no problem.