Tank Tactics
-
what is (WP,CAN.FS & HE). ?? I only know HE is High-Explosive. What is CAN and FS? WP I believe is "Phosphorus (spelling)". right?
Actually 8 MGs are no big deal compared with 4 x 25mm and 4 x MGs for 4 Bionix if you minus out the main gun. At this kind of short-range encounter, I feel that the 25mm will be more lethal compared with the 75mm main gun. The 75mm Main gun is already next to useless as it is being overtaken by the 25mm gun in short range fire support and is completely useless when faced with our "friend's" T72s. -
Actually talking bout the plantations. I seriously doubt that any tank can navigate through any of them. Its seriously too cramp unless ur talking about running over the trees instead. Actually, has the saf ever tried out paradropping or dropping them out the tanks at low altitude using the C-130s? Could help us flank enemy positions or enable us to place forces anywhere we want rapidly.
-
ayah told u liao... its time for the era of Battle Mechs.Originally posted by V1NS@niTY:Actually talking bout the plantations. I seriously doubt that any tank can navigate through any of them. Its seriously too cramp unless ur talking about running over the trees instead. Actually, has the saf ever tried out paradropping or dropping them out the tanks at low altitude using the C-130s? Could help us flank enemy positions or enable us to place forces anywhere we want rapidly. -
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
Yes the father of armoured warfare proposed and infact trained the intial batch of tankers for the Wehrmacht.He wanted the tanks to be used as an armoured fist banging the enemy at 1point and running through.After which the tanks will flank the enemy and trap the enemy between the tanks and advancing infantry.Note at this point the only infantry units the Panzer regiments will have would be the Panzer Grenadier troops that followed in the half-tracks.That is armoured warfare as directed by Guderian.However Blitzkrieg is a total warfare that is presently still practised.Namely by the USA.Ofcause 60 years of experience and technology has made the Blitzkrieg of today far more effective.The chief purpose of the blitz was to take out the enemy in as fast a way as possible before he has a chance to use his full potential.For example the low countries and poland were caught out still mobilzing troops when the attack came and never got to their max amount of soldiers depolyed before their positions were overran.The blitz and the armoured warfare needed the soldiers to be indepented and not be held back when a chance was seen.The officers needed to know what to do and how not to wait for orders.At present the US army with all it's high tech grear is extremely independent on the battlefield.Like the German's of ww2 they are also very moblie.Ofcause technology has made the US even better as they can see the picture more clearly.Airpower alone cannot win a conflict in this part of the world ( think vietnam ).
It is commonly known that airpower alone cannot win wars though Kosovo is more of an example then vietnam.Infact the US did not lose vietnam on a purely military standpoint.They only lost the political war.Heck they barely even touched the North in their bombing campaign.The vietcong had little supplies when the US started bombing the trails that they used to bring supplies in.When the US pulled out the front was pretty intact i believe not to sure though.
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 warfareBtw... 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
Sure grit and heavy use of airpower.Tanks were rarely used(flamethrower tanks aside)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
Japanese tanks were crap.....comparable to the charB or PZ 3'sIn 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
The tanks were classified as support and thus grouped with the artiliary.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.
Every platoon of german and i think even US troops were given at least 1 or 2 anti-armour weapon.(Bazooka or PanzerFuast,/Panzercheck)
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 since the tank was a tiger i doubt those wld do anything other then throw a track.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.
Blitzkrieg has to be implemented otherwised we are screwed.....we cannot afford attrition.However i think we should be more infantry based but with heavy supporting fire(both direct and indirect) and some armour. -
Like I have said before SM1 is definitely old and close to being obsolete. About the plantation part, i did not commend about this by pure personal speculation. It is an established doctrine. People who have really and personally done NS will know about this. Ever wonder why there are small rubber and oil palm plantations in our training area? Please commend sensibly.
-
nah. in that particular episode, the british only had shermans. firefly is a sherman wif an upgraded american gun. e original sherman gun was damn pathetic, canot even dent a german tiger. e firefly had a much better gun, but there were too little fireflies to go around coz e british were not willing to replace their sherman guns due to 'national pride', indirectly dragging on WWII.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. -
Unfortunately while the SM1 can get there, it can't do much can it? It's pratically an unprotected 75 mm gun and a few mgs. Fighting in such areas, one expects to take a few RPG hits, and the SM1 can't do that well at all.Originally posted by tankee1981:Like I have said before SM1 is definitely old and close to being obsolete. About the plantation part, i did not commend about this by pure personal speculation. It is an established doctrine. People who have really and personally done NS will know about this. Ever wonder why there are small rubber and oil palm plantations in our training area? Please commend sensibly. -
Thanx a lot |-|05|, best commentary Ive heard so far. Anyway Ive not served NS yet.. so i had no idea about the whole plantation thingy, thanx for clearing that up. I still maintain that there were 2 other tanks other than the shermans in that episode most likely british made. They had a lower profile and were more box-like.
-
With proliferation of cheap RPGs in the world especially MAF is getting the cheap Baktar Shikan(a modified RPG-7 AT missiles) from Pakistan. It might not be wise to have our AFVs to be lightly armour to take care of such threat.
There are many active protection system under development for AFV, I hope SAF should look at them so to be better protected as well as light enough for local terrain.
CHARGE!!!
-
i thought it was another way around...the firefly had a british gun right?Originally posted by Groovee:nah. in that particular episode, the british only had shermans. firefly is a sherman wif an upgraded american gun. e original sherman gun was damn pathetic, canot even dent a german tiger. e firefly had a much better gun, but there were too little fireflies to go around coz e british were not willing to replace their sherman guns due to 'national pride', indirectly dragging on WWII. -
Originally posted by gary1910:
actually SAF is already using these sufficnet protection system however i do not know why they do not put it on for training.. maybe to save cost?
With proliferation of cheap RPGs in the world especially MAF is getting the cheap Baktar Shikan(a modified RPG-7 AT missiles) from Pakistan. It might not be wise to have our AFVs to be lightly armour to take care of such threat.
There are many active protection system under development for AFV, I hope SAF should look at them so to be better protected as well as light enough for local terrain.
[b]CHARGE!!!
[/b] -
That is assuming that all 4 tanks are functional and working..That is not likely to happen. Besides. a well placed Law can destroy the tank. They need to replace the tank now and i mean now. Also dont forget that due to trees you cannot transverse your main gun also. Therefore sm-1 is still more suited to clear terrian. If operating in plantations, i forsee that the AI will dismount and creep behind the tank for local protection.Originally posted by tankee1981:AMX-13SM1 is definitely old and almost close to being obsolete. However, one must not underestimated the fire power of them. Each tank is armed with 2 MG and a 75mm Main Gun. The main gun can fire a range of munitions(WP,CAN.FS & HE). The tanks operate in platoons of 4 vehicles. That will be a total of 8 MG and 4 main guns. Imagine they form up in a line and charge at an entrenched position.Even if you minus the main guns, the 8 MGs spraying 7.62mm rds is indeed frightening! Although it cannot operate in dense tropical jungle very effectively,due to it relatively small size it is able to operate in in the plantations up north. Remember gentlemen, lots of land have already been converted to oil palm and rubber plantations. The trees are planted in a fashion where the space between the trees are standardised. Due to this advantage, i dun feel that the SM1 is totally obsolete yet at least not in another 5 years before its replacement is unveiled. -
Are you nuts? That thing is a death trap! When it's a bullet magnet and it will blow up when it is hit by any AT weapon, I think it's safer to keep away from that thing... just kidding... but they better get a better tank soon...Originally posted by rancour5:That is assuming that all 4 tanks are functional and working..That is not likely to happen. Besides. a well placed Law can destroy the tank. They need to replace the tank now and i mean now. Also dont forget that due to trees you cannot transverse your main gun also. Therefore sm-1 is still more suited to clear terrian. If operating in plantations, i forsee that the AI will dismount and creep behind the tank for local protection. -
True, the AI are supposed to dismount and spread out just like what the normal infantry will do. This is to minimise casualties as the APCs and IFVs are not very manevourable in restricted terrain. Another reason is that the AI can engage the enemy AFVs with thier LAWs as these weapons are useless when the AI are mounted in the APCs or IFVs. Lastly it is also to attack enemy anti-tank squads as the terrain is very suitable for embushing an armoured force.
-
AI as in one person in each vehicle representing a whole section!Originally posted by tankee1981:True, the AI are supposed to dismount and spread out just like what the normal infantry will do. This is to minimise casualties as the APCs and IFVs are not very manevourable in restricted terrain. Another reason is that the AI can engage the enemy AFVs with thier LAWs as these weapons are useless when the AI are mounted in the APCs or IFVs. Lastly it is also to attack enemy anti-tank squads as the terrain is very suitable for embushing an armoured force. 
Such is the manpower situation today?.... -
guys, rather than looking at one sided (singapore side), why not look across the straits and talk abt how the scorpion &/or more likely russian FVs that can pose a hindrance on the way up north (should we go....or should they come down)
i'd like to see how their armour superiority in terms of ours...also how would they likely come down/ maneuvour given their own mass and having heavy armour as well. -
My knowledge on Malaysian armour is not very extensive but heres what I think they have:
PT-91 MBTs
Alvis Scorpion with 90mm gun
Daewoo Korean IFV
Alvis Stormer APC
Panhard M3 APC (4 x 4)
Panhard AML Light Armored Car (4 x 4)
Thyysen Condor APC (4 x 4)
Shorland Armored Patrol Car (4 x 4)
Daimler Ferret Scout Car (4 x 4)
GKN Saxon APC (4 x 4)
Shorland S5 APC (4 x 4)
Cadillac Cage AFV LAV-100 and LAV-150 both 4 x 4
SIBMAS APC ( a lot of variants including recovery and 90mm gun variant) (6 x 6)
ASTROS MRLS
Source: Jane's Tank Recognition Guide 1996
As you can see.... not many tracked vehicles but lotsa 4 x 4 armored trucks. Mostly made in UK and France. Don't know the numbers of each vehicle and operational status. Quite an assortment of vehicles actually. They will have to rely on their tracked vehicles for offensive operations. Vehicles with tank killing capability are the PT-91, Scorpion and the 90mm SIBMAS. The rest are soft-skinned... can be taken out by LAWs. I think they have invested a lot on wheeled vehicles becuz of the terrain. Any thoughts anyone? -
Scorpion is as useless as Sm-1. I think we got to fear the pt-91, not sure about the SIBMAS. They seem to possess a lot of 90mm though..a bit disadvantage for us rite. since, we only have less than 10 90mm calibre tanks.Originally posted by V1NS@niTY:My knowledge on Malaysian armour is not very extensive but heres what I think they have:
PT-91 MBTs
Alvis Scorpion with 90mm gun
Daewoo Korean IFV
Alvis Stormer APC
Panhard M3 APC (4 x 4)
Panhard AML Light Armored Car (4 x 4)
Thyysen Condor APC (4 x 4)
Shorland Armored Patrol Car (4 x 4)
Daimler Ferret Scout Car (4 x 4)
GKN Saxon APC (4 x 4)
Shorland S5 APC (4 x 4)
Cadillac Cage AFV LAV-100 and LAV-150 both 4 x 4
SIBMAS APC ( a lot of variants including recovery and 90mm gun variant) (6 x 6)
ASTROS MRLS
Source: Jane's Tank Recognition Guide 1996
As you can see.... not many tracked vehicles but lotsa 4 x 4 armored trucks. Mostly made in UK and France. Don't know the numbers of each vehicle and operational status. Quite an assortment of vehicles actually. They will have to rely on their tracked vehicles for offensive operations. Vehicles with tank killing capability are the PT-91, Scorpion and the 90mm SIBMAS. The rest are soft-skinned... can be taken out by LAWs. I think they have invested a lot on wheeled vehicles becuz of the terrain. Any thoughts anyone? -
We do have 30 something AMX-10s with 90mm guns.
-
I thought the total estab for AMX-10 only stands at 22. (all variants)Originally posted by eurofighter:We do have 30 something AMX-10s with 90mm guns. -
Actually the main the amoured force for MAF few years ago are mainly the Sibmas(164) & the Condor(459). They are pretty old and rather soft skin(up to 7.62). They have poor tactical mobility especially all the 4x4 wheeled AFVs.Originally posted by V1NS@niTY:My knowledge on Malaysian armour is not very extensive but heres what I think they have:
PT-91 MBTs
Alvis Scorpion with 90mm gun
Daewoo Korean IFV
Alvis Stormer APC
Panhard M3 APC (4 x 4)
Panhard AML Light Armored Car (4 x 4)
Thyysen Condor APC (4 x 4)
Shorland Armored Patrol Car (4 x 4)
Daimler Ferret Scout Car (4 x 4)
GKN Saxon APC (4 x 4)
Shorland S5 APC (4 x 4)
Cadillac Cage AFV LAV-100 and LAV-150 both 4 x 4
SIBMAS APC ( a lot of variants including recovery and 90mm gun variant) (6 x 6)
ASTROS MRLS
Source: Jane's Tank Recognition Guide 1996
As you can see.... not many tracked vehicles but lotsa 4 x 4 armored trucks. Mostly made in UK and France. Don't know the numbers of each vehicle and operational status. Quite an assortment of vehicles actually. They will have to rely on their tracked vehicles for offensive operations. Vehicles with tank killing capability are the PT-91, Scorpion and the 90mm SIBMAS. The rest are soft-skinned... can be taken out by LAWs. I think they have invested a lot on wheeled vehicles becuz of the terrain. Any thoughts anyone?
The tracked veh they have then are the 26 Scorpion 90s and 25 Stormer MICVs mainly use for armoured recon.
SAF realised in the 70s that the wheeled AFV are very not mobile in our tropical rain forest terrain and migrated all to tracked(V-200 to M113), it take another 2 decades for the MAF to realise that!
Well, they are going toward all tracked AFV armour force with their purchase of 110 KIFVs( modified M113 similar to AIFV standard), initially mainly bought for UN operation in Bosnia, lately ordered 211 Turkish ACV300 Nurol(another modified M113, AIFV standard) and lastly 48 PT-91s Polish upgrade T-72s with another 14 support vehs.
As more tracked AFVs come on line,rumour has it that most of the 4x4 wheeled Condors will most probably be retired and the rest of the 4x4 have most probably already retired. Otherwise their AFVs are like rojak just like their airforce.
The new MAF armoured forces will be much better armoured up to14.5mm, and have better tactical mobility than the Sibmas & Condor, that certainly as good as our Ultra , maybe lose out to Bionix. But we still have numerical superiority.
Their pathetic number for their MBTs against our soon to be replaced SM1 and Tempests , I think we are still pretty comfortable.
CHARGE!!! -
Judging from the current trend in sg's buying of armored vehicles, a new MBT would probably be locally designed but have borrowed components from other MBTs. Maybe a lighter version of the merkava, Leopard 2, challenger 2 or leclerc tanks. After operating the tempests for so long, i'm sure they have all the experience needed to tailor a MBT suited to local conditions. Can sell to Thailand also if interested. Maybe its one of those sg "black" programs that the gahmen will never reveal... silver bullets!!
-
Don't worry about the MBT replacement for our Tempest. We already got itand have been training in them for quite some time already! But its highly classified! AI stands for armour infantry and its plural so its not just one man out of each vehicle! The number of men in each vehicle should not be discussed here. We have been trained to identified Russian AFVs until recently,so my question is that does any of our neighbouring countries operate T-72 MBT? And I am not referring to the PT-91.
-
what?! already got replacement?? LOLZ... are u even supposed to reveal that there is a new MBT in service already? I guess its israeli-made!!! Warm or cold? In that case.... then our armored force isnt as "lousy" as we think it is.
-
I tot there are AMX10RCs with 105mm gun as well. I think this is more appropriate if one is thinking of speeding up the advance.Originally posted by rancour5:I thought the total estab for AMX-10 only stands at 22. (all variants)