Tank Tactics
-
Originally posted by V1NS@niTY:
Actually our armoured forces as it is today are not that bad relative to our neighbours. There are some concerns regarding SM-1's vulnerability to LAW weapons but that applies to MBTs too(tracks).
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.Originally posted by tankee1981:
So finally our armour are preparing for the eventuality of contributing to world peace eh? Looking forward to it.
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. -
i'm not worried abt their PT91s....in armour, we always go by the rule of fire first & 1 shot 1 kill. i'm pretty comfortable with my gunner abt that and all the gunners that will be going out for ops.
now back to the topic proper, if the north folks are to deploy their 4x4s and whatever they have of their scorpions/pt91s...i believe it should not deviate much from being a pt defense/offense or ambush tactics.
also, given their vast land, they will need more FVs to maintain a viable line of defense/offense in whichever case, they will be stretched to the max given their current vehicle status.
with regards to their 4x4s, their easy targets for pickup once spotted. -
Erm the problem is that a LAW can knock out and kill the crew of an SM1 anywhere it hits. Gunning for an MBT's track at range while it's gunning at you is far from a simple thing. As we can see from the allied tanks in GF2 taking tons of RPG hits and still not getting a mobility kill. Shooting up tracks in real life is quite difficult, but not hitting an SM1.Originally posted by Fairyland:Actually our armoured forces as it is today are not that bad relative to our neighbours. There are some concerns regarding SM-1's vulnerability to LAW weapons but that applies to MBTs too(tracks). -
From what I gather the the crew of the Scorpions have to exit the vehicle in order to fire their 90mm low velocity gun!Originally posted by tiggersgd:i'm not worried abt their PT91s....in armour, we always go by the rule of fire first & 1 shot 1 kill. i'm pretty comfortable with my gunner abt that and all the gunners that will be going out for ops.
now back to the topic proper, if the north folks are to deploy their 4x4s and whatever they have of their scorpions/pt91s...i believe it should not deviate much from being a pt defense/offense or ambush tactics.
also, given their vast land, they will need more FVs to maintain a viable line of defense/offense in whichever case, they will be stretched to the max given their current vehicle status.
with regards to their 4x4s, their easy targets for pickup once spotted.
Something to do with the "shockwaves" 
I think theirs is a direct fire support weapon.
Also some have displayed metal fatigue around the turret ring because the alu hull can't take the recoil.
PT 91 is something new to them. Will take some time to reach IOC. Even then they are too few in numbers to be a threat.
Now to the 4x4s, the older panhard was used in Somalia to evac the US Deltas and Rangers. One scored a direct RPG hit killing 13 MAF soldiers. Then they moved to Korean IFVs in Bosnia. Very expensive lesson.......
These 4x4s are limited in their mobility. They have to stay near roads/highways and are of limited use elsewhere. This is true even if they have more of them. Very good for paramilitary ops like riot control in towns/kampungs.
SAF is now a force capable of and trained in rapid 3D maneuvers. It's tough to see how we can be overwhelm by the 4x4s and whatever. But once we get bog down.......and start drawing a FEBA line, then I think our weakness will show. -
The SM1 is obsolete for the following reasons. When the AMX-13 is first used in the 70s(??), there was basically no "Armoured" opponents at all in SEA. Also AT weapons are still primitive and most nations in SEA cannot afford ATGW(Anti-Tank Guided Weapons).
Singapore operate AMX-13 with the M113. The largest caliber in the M113 is a pintle mounted 12.7mm HMG. in this scenario, the AMX-13/SM1 will be able to complement the M113 as a "Fire Support Vehicle" with its 75mm Main Gun. In the past, when there are no Heavily Armoured AFVs in SEA beyond Thailands' M48/M60, Cambodia/Vietnam's T-55/T-62, the 75mm Gun is quite sufficient in the Anti-Tank role again Scopions, 4x4s etc.
However, the Armoured Battle groups now have 25mm guns, 12.7mm HMG and 40mm AGL mounted on power-operated mountings on their Bionix and Ultras for their fire support needs.
It is notworthy that the first version of the BMP comes with a 76mm gun but the latest version comes with a 30mm auto-cannon. As such, we can say that Russians think that cannon of the 25mm/30mm class are more suited for first support role and as such the SM1 is now being overtaken and there is actually no role for it as the Bionix's 25mm gun is probably better than the 75mm gun in a fire support role.
The 75mm gun is now also totally useless as a Anti-Tank role because there are now AFVs of the T72 class in service.
We should get a full-size MBT so act as a the armoured fist for our land force. This is different from the the current "Mechanized Infantry" (armoured battle groups) concept.
If there is a budget, get a low-velocity 105mm armed Bionix that can keep up with the dedicated AI carrying Bxs and Ultras. This 105mm LV gun can be used as a additional fire support role much like the AMX-10P 90mm gun is doing.
In the future, instead of a having a generic armoured battle groups, we will have two different types of units MBTs/BXs and BX-105/BX/Ultras. Since we are going to form an armoured div (tom huxley) this will probably materialize. The 155mm SPH is also a good add-on as a mobile/protected support that can keep up with the frontline. -
i don't really agree to the 2 forces....one pt to note is that logistics will be a problem. manufacturing of different munitions will also need to be considered, esp in times of ops.
another thought is that - we need to be comparable to the enemy's MBTs stats in terms of gun, FCS etc in order to have an effective kill. for eg: SM1 with PT91?? SM1 may need 2 or more shots to kill a PT and depending on the target hit.
MBT (not mid ones) typically start with 120mm....
the other option will be to call in our tank busters to quickly perform the kill job while we eat our sandwiches...
-
For your information,almost all the M113 have been upgraded to the Ultra standard with 25mm OWS and 40/50 turrets.Therefore the highest calibre that our M113 is not that of the 12.7mm HMG. We also have M113s for the combat engineers.
-
Thanks for the clarification. If you read my passage carefully, I am saying that in the "past" when the M113 only have hand operated 12.7mm, the AMX-13's 75mm Main Gun gives our ABGs a lot of additional firepower.Originally posted by tankee1981:For your information,almost all the M113 have been upgraded to the Ultra standard with 25mm OWS and 40/50 turrets.Therefore the highest calibre that our M113 is not that of the 12.7mm HMG. We also have M113s for the combat engineers.
But now with the Ultras' and BXs' 25mm and power operated 12.7mm/40mm AGL, the firepower of the AI-carrying vehicles have increased tremendously and that the AMX-13 75mm is quite redundant. -
however, the armour on the m113/ultra is even less than that of sm1. to say the ultra having better firepower doesn't equals to the sm1 being redundant.Originally posted by spencer99:Thanks for the clarification. If you read my passage carefully, I am saying that in the "past" when the M113 only have hand operated 12.7mm, the AMX-13's 75mm Main Gun gives our ABGs a lot of additional firepower.
But now with the Ultras' and BXs' 25mm and power operated 12.7mm/40mm AGL, the firepower of the AI-carrying vehicles have increased tremendously and that the AMX-13 75mm is quite redundant.
m113/ultra will still be an AI FV and no matter what, they're not classified as light TANKS per say. even the munitions are of different calibre n type.
rather than being redundant, i'd say its complementing forces in armour for saf.
sm1 still lead the way in ops..... -
Sorry,my mistake. As the above military nut have pointed out SM1 is still leading in Ops,this proved that it still have potential even at this age. Can anyone answer my question? Which country in this region operate T-72 MBTs even in same numbers. I am not referring to the Malaysian PT-91.Thanks.
-
The reason why they are serving is not because they "still got some use" left, but because we don't have any other choice but to operate them. Light tank technology has surpassed the SM1 by almost 60 years liao, the only reason it's still sticking around is because we have yet to put in a better unit.Originally posted by tankee1981:Sorry,my mistake. As the above military nut have pointed out SM1 is still leading in Ops,this proved that it still have potential even at this age. Can anyone answer my question? Which country in this region operate T-72 MBTs even in same numbers. I am not referring to the Malaysian PT-91.Thanks.
Concider this, if the SM1 is leading in a real war op, how long do you think it'll survive. That thing can't shoot on the move, has to stop to fire. Armour no need to say liao. Only can fire 12 75mm shots then cannot fight liao. How useful is that?
Compare it to other light tanks that have sufficent armour to wistand infantry AT weapons, carry autoloading 105mm guns with over 21 rounds ready to shoot, and most of all, can fire on the move!
To stay still and shoot is sucide, even a second or two of hesitation can make you a far larger target to an RPG. -
let me clarify when i say "SM1 still lead the way"
i mean to say SM1 still head the column from pt a to b....
but i do agree that light tank technology has improved vastly over the decades. we need to replace our SM1s fast...this is so that we stay ahead of our neighbours in terms of all-round superiority.
its a worthwhile investment. note that one F16C/D cost millions to build/get and a pilot typically costs alot to train as well.
i think for s'pore, human resource plays a high factor in our ability to operate a long warfare. imagine soldiers dying at a rate of thousands in days....how long can we substain a war like that?
sorry...side track. -
According to most open sources, singapore have about 350 AMX-13/SM1. Yes no country in the region have 350 T72 or its equivalent. I think it is fair to say that the PT91 is equivalent to the T72. Some would say better.
It is hard to replace 350 vehicles at one go. Also knowing Singapore, we will probably get a vehicle that needs a 3-man crew instead of 4-man crew to so save on manpower.
I agree, that is still leading the way because that is all we have. Also the upgrades are mainly to engine/transmission/suspension. That is good. Not sure whether upgrade optics or FC system or not?
But shortcomings like "Armour"/ not able to fire on the move are not corrected. This is not so evident in peacetime when they are not live rounds heading your way.
And the 75mm gun that may be adequate in the 1960s is obsolete now ,even with improved rounds. Nothing is also done to the 12 rounds of ready ammo capacity. -
Aiya... dun need to worry about the SM1 and the M113 and the tempest lar. Like someone said, they are well already upgrading to new vehicles already... Just that these vehicles are really really classified and cannot discussed here.
I mean.. whoever that talks about our gundams on this sgforums is nuts and needs a visit by the MSD. Our gundams can easily take out like 10 vehicles in a single engagement. 10:0 kill ratio. AND it functions as an air superiority fighter as well as armored vehicle.
PLUS, it is super manpower efficient. You need only 1 pilot. Gunnery and everything else is automated. All targets are immediately locked on with the onboard multi-sensor. Which includes, Surface search radar - doppler, Infra red tracking, as well as a brand new Magnetic Anomaly Sensor which kicks ass when used to find metallic items on the ground from 10ct coins to stormer AFVs. All the pilot has to do is just select the targets to fire upon, *targets conveniently generated into a target list with 3D graphical images of the targets position and facing.* and give the command to fire. The current model of gundam assault suit we have now currently can only hold 90 missiles. Back up weapon for the Gundam would be 76mm rapid firing assault carbine. And for really up close and personal fun, a 2 storey high Lazer Sword.
I mean, u don't expect anyone from the army to post this kinda classified stuff on the net rite? -
With all the discussion centered on the ground - with the SM-1, Ultras, Bionix, M113 - all the talk of anti-armor and the armor punch, seems to have overlooked the APACHE Longbow AH-64 A/D attack helicopters that are intended to complement the ground forces in a supporting attack and defense roles.
Even with any future introduction of a new light or heavy tank, the AMX SM-1 continue to have a role in providing direct gun fire in support of any Armored Infantry activities - in fire fights in the jungle, open terrain, or FIBUA.
The SM-1 remains agile with its new re-engined high horse powered Detroit Deisels and Allisons Auto-Transmission, and can charge up the hill with enough psychological impact.
Whoever dare to face a steeled SM-1 charging at a high speed, while still in a fox hole, has probably not face such a situation yet. -
If I have a LAW and the SM-1 is charging at me. Bye bye tank. It will have no chance of dodging the missile. And also... I won't be afraid of it shooting at me, cos it can't shoot for nuts while charging at "fool" speed. Thats why MODERN tanks have stabilized turrets.
-
true on the firing on the move....but have u ever tried standing with your LAW tube in front of a charging tank (SM1) with their MGs firing at you?Originally posted by Shotgun:If I have a LAW and the SM-1 is charging at me. Bye bye tank. It will have no chance of dodging the missile. And also... I won't be afraid of it shooting at me, cos it can't shoot for nuts while charging at "fool" speed. Thats why MODERN tanks have stabilized turrets.
bro... for me, i'll fire off one round at the enemy standing in front of me if at that situation...irregularless of stabilizer or not as life and death is concerned.
oh yes...bye bye to you too...in shredded pieces by the MGs. -
First of all, I don't need to stand to fire the LAW. I can high kneel. Even Low Kneel.
Second, who is more accurate? A charging SM1 (guns blazing) or a cockster low kneeling preferably behind cover, with the tank 100m away.
Third, attrition rate. Sure, I don't like the idea of sacrificing myself in the battle to accomplish an objective. But if its an order to stop the tank at all costs, then I lan lan have to do it. If i win, i kill a vehicle, + 3 men inside. If I die... well I was killed by 3 men and a vehicle. -
Okay, so this topic has been dead for over a month but I was compleeled to answer.
First of all, the Sherman firefly was a British variant of the Sherman (american name was M4) which used an 88mm tank cannon as opposed to the M4s standard 75mm cannon. This made it as well gunned as the German Tiger and Panther which could laugh off the hits of a standard Sherman. A famous quote from the time was that you needed 7 Shermans to kill one tiger, and they would have to all drive toward it to get around it asss and put it down. But that you would lose 6 of the Shermans doing it.
Someone was talking about the fact that the Churchill wasn't as manouverable as a Panzer 3/4. True, but a churchill was far more mobile and very well armoured. It typified the cautious nature of the British that put protection of the troops at its forefront. Hence the cruiser tanks designed to support infantry whch got mashed by the German forces spearheaded by the panzers when the blitz into the west finally came.
In reagrds to the pacific theartre and the American island hopping tactics, you shelled the crap out of the island. You then landed amphibious troops (marines) with armoured support and they had to take the island. Every time was like a mini operation overlord and caused massive casulaties to the Americans. (with the famous ones being Iwo Jima and Guadacanal) Once the beach head was secured they just had to advance across the island until any obvious resistance was crushed. Then you could move out leaving a guard force and go the the next island. Estimates of an American invasion of Japan had causaulties over 1 million dead. The A-bomb was used to stop the unthinkable happening. The greatest weapon the Americans had was the flamethrower in a jungle operation, and flamethrower shermans proved utterly deadly as the Japs had almost no way of stopping a Sherman. (a tank which the Germans had little fear of as they went on fire very nicely most of the times they were hit)
When Vientnam was mentioned, to be fair, as a military operation it was a failure, however in the field the American troops acquited themselves well and did superior, and in fact the South vietnamise forces terrified the Viet Cong, wo avoided them like the plague. It was the political will that was lost, not the combat.
Japanese tanks were not designed specially for forests, they were just poor quality. Like the Italians they produced worse equipment than the Germans, but the Japs had an astoundingly powerful nazy and airforce, but they were controlled by the army at the capital who told the emperor and prime minister what to order. ATGMs would not work in a forest with such short ranges. ALthough there are greater ambush positions, prepared positions with cleared forests would work better for a technically superior army who could engage at longer ranges. Using the terrain to funnel enemy units into bottlenecks and then hitting them would also work as a forest would not provide the most satble route for an armoured advance (even if the Germans pulled it off in the ardennes, but the flatter European geography may work better for that than a smaller contained geography that would be likely more hilly. With so many ambush points an advance would be very costly and would be an attackers nightmare and would probably eat up manpower, maybe not in death, but just in trying to find the defenders giving them a great advantage in time.
Just remember the blitzkrieg was designed for a short sharp attack which caused an intense panic. It would not work through a well prepared and highly motivated defending army like in the later attacks made by the Germans against the allies and Russians which no longer had the same potency.
While aircraft cannot win a war they would be incredibly important for backing up the armoured forces on the ground. But the main unit will always be the foot sloging infantry man =P[/quote]