




who wans to carry these damned things? n law can't even dent PT-91 wif add-on armour. 84 maybe can dent abitOriginally posted by spencer99:we must increase the number of 84mm RR tubes organic to each rifle company and increase the supply of our LAWs (our requivalent to RPGs) during an urban conflict which are armoured.
The PT-91 is similar to T72 and T80 right?
Originally posted by paulho:First of all, good article. Thanks. Read something like that a while ago but without the nice pictures and illustrations.
still think it's a good idea to replace all our amx with large MBT?![]()
Not thinking of penetrating the armour for a total kill, mobility kills and vision kills are important and effective as well. When you don't have anti-amour weapon that can totally destroy a tank, the best thing to do is to disable it so that it is harder for the tank to return accurate fire. If opportunity arises, can run up to the tank, drop a couple of hand grenade or even the smokers drown the crew's "man-hole", could effectively kill it as well.Originally posted by 5.56:who wans to carry these damned things? n law can't even dent PT-91 wif add-on armour. 84 maybe can dent abit![]()
Does the M8 fits our needs? a 'thin skin' tank killer....Originally posted by Joe Black:In any case, SAF ORBAT is not formed to operate MBT in any great numbers. They are there to deal with extreme cases. That is why I favour an MBT that has more speed than extremely thick armour. One that has low ground pressure and advanced sights, and effective active defensive aid suite.
I think it will be suicidal for a pilot to try flying his helicopter in between 2 buildings. rpg/84mm attacks you' know ...Originally posted by 5.56:as for urban armour warfare, armour battle groups must be supported wif armed choppers to protect them against holed up threats in buildings. however wif only 20 apaches, we can't cover much ground as we would like. 50 of these monsters will be ideal![]()
More importantly, the MACOV study concluded that tanks, with organic support,could move in 61 percent of Vietnam during the dry season and 46 percent during the wet season. Armored personnel carriers could move in 65 percent of the country all the year round.The tank I believe is the tank was M48 MBT, where APC was M113.

Then again, I reiterate my previous statement for SAF's long-term if not immediate requirement for radically new armour platforms in view of the devastating losses faced by the Russians in Chechnya:Originally posted by Joe Black:First of all, good article. Thanks. Read something like that a while ago but without the nice pictures and illustrations.
Secondly, Urbane warfare is inheritantly difficult - look, the US and the British armies effective avoid going into cities in the latest Guif War. British forces effectively surrounded Basra for days before attacking it. Yet, attacking built up area without armour is sucidal as well. I think the answer lies somewhere in between, and perhaps the real solution is to perform a seize and let the enemies inside starve for days and lower there moral first. Going into any urban area where the enemies have sufficient time to layout tank killing teams, snipers and bobby traps are just asking for trouble. In any case, the US learnt a bloody lesson in Somalia and the Russian in Chechnya.
As to your question about MBT, I would say that SAF damn sure need some albeit not in big numbers. If we haven't learnt any lesson from WWII where the British laughed at the idea of having tanks in Malaya, think again. Essentially, I think the Jap taught us a good lesson about Jungle warfare and we MUST learn it well. Manoeuvrability + Firepower = Win Battle in jungle warfare. Not to mention, Penisular Malaysia is so well developed these days with many well paved roads and highways.Most part of Johor are not jungle and dense forest anyway. The objective of SAF is not to drive all the way to KL or most northern tip of Malaysia. The MBT will ensure that when any mechanised or armoured battle group meets any stiff resistence or the appearance of enemy's MBT, they can effectively neutralise that. I'm sure most infantry soldiers or armoured soldiers like to have some heavy duty tanks on their side just in case.
In any case, SAF ORBAT is not formed to operate MBT in any great numbers. They are there to deal with extreme cases. That is why I favour an MBT that has more speed than extremely thick armour. One that has low ground pressure and advanced sights, and effective active defensive aid suite.
Huh? What are you talking about? In the context of FIBUA, light AFVs, especialy light tanks are extremely vulnerable. While smaller and more nimble, they are unable to stop almost any kind of anti-armour weapon thrown at it. And in FIBUA, you getting hit is very likely. This is why when the unavoidable happens, you need armour to get you through.Originally posted by paulho:er .. first of all the topic was not directed against any entity or country, the example was merely used to illustrate why it is a bad idea to replace all our light tanks for heavy ones in SEA context to fighting in built up areas.
Contary to belief that the LAW is useless against MBT. True the MBT it can probably withstand the first shot but if you fired 5-6 LAW it will break every tank has vulnerbilities, a good example would be the Merkava that was 'killed' when it ran over a large home-made explosive charge in palestine.Wrong again. An MBT is vulnerable in its weaker side, rear and top armour, but the frontal armour can wistand more then its fair share of hits. Armour tatics in FIBUA deploy the units in such a way that they cover each others weak spots and present the strongest armour to the enemy. As I said, tatics count as much as armour.
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Actually, the point you made here is nearly what happened in the war in Lebanon in 1982 (Peace for Galilee). The IDF was facing Hizbollah throwing them RPGs, Syrian with their tanks in Beruit and the IDF pretty much employed the very tactics of deploying tanks as you have described here. The Centurions, M60s basically had reactive armoured protecting the front of the hull, the side of the turrent and the portion of the top of the turret. The reactive armour practically absorbed most of the RPG hits. Most of IDF tank loses were in fact due to Syrian tank fire in tank vs tank engagement. Of course IDF won the day with some 150 tanks lost whereas Syrian lost up to 400 tanks.
Wrong again. An MBT is vulnerable in its weaker side, rear and top armour, but the frontal armour can wistand more then its fair share of hits. Armour tatics in FIBUA deploy the units in such a way that they cover each others weak spots and present the strongest armour to the enemy. As I said, tatics count as much as armour.
You can fire as many LAWs as you want at a well armoured MBT like the Abrams, but it won't do you no good as long as the strongest armour faced you. To get through with a lucky shot from the front means an inpratical number of LAWs fired, to what end? Attract attention from the MBT and its support elements?
As a testiment to the error of your points, several Abrams tanks were hit by RPG up to fifteen times rumbling through Bagdad and suffered no significant damage whatsoever. The combination of armour and tatics meant that the Iraqis resisting could never get a shot at the tanks' weak spot without being gunned down and the shots they could get off were wasted on the strongest armour.
It was actually a home-made mine, detonated at the bottom of the Mekarva III Baz. Because of this the Mekarva Iv had added floor armour and a more V-shape hull bottom to divert blast away from from the center.
And that homemade device that killed the Merkava was anything but small, it was a 250 kilo bomb, more then enough to kill even the strongest tank in the world.[/b]
A very nifty solution to all future war scenarios of avoiding being targeted by enemy AT teams - blind themOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Wrong again. An MBT is vulnerable in its weaker side, rear and top armour, but the frontal armour can wistand more then its fair share of hits. Armour tatics in FIBUA deploy the units in such a way that they cover each others weak spots and present the strongest armour to the enemy. As I said, tatics count as much as armour.
You can fire as many LAWs as you want at a well armoured MBT like the Abrams, but it won't do you no good as long as the strongest armour faced you. To get through with a lucky shot from the front means an inpratical number of LAWs fired, to what end? Attract attention from the MBT and its support elements?
As a testiment to the error of your points, several Abrams tanks were hit by RPG up to fifteen times rumbling through Bagdad and suffered no significant damage whatsoever. The combination of armour and tatics meant that the Iraqis resisting could never get a shot at the tanks' weak spot without being gunned down and the shots they could get off were wasted on the strongest armour.
And that homemade device that killed the Merkava was anything but small, it was a 250 kilo bomb, more then enough to kill even the strongest tank in the world.
Every AT gunner knows that there is more than one way to disable at a tank, only the iraqiÂ’s are stupid enuf to shoot at the most shielded front of 1 of the most formidable tank in the world. I think saddam never sent his AT gunners for any training, mebbe save cost to build more palaces. In a sense the Americans were lucky they faced one of the lousiest trained armies in the world. Dun think will be so lucky if they faced off the Chinese or North Koreans using same AT weapons in a fibua environment.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Wrong again. An MBT is vulnerable in its weaker side, rear and top armour, but the frontal armour can wistand more then its fair share of hits. Armour tatics in FIBUA deploy the units in such a way that they cover each others weak spots and present the strongest armour to the enemy. As I said, tatics count as much as armour.
You can fire as many LAWs as you want at a well armoured MBT like the Abrams, but it won't do you no good as long as the strongest armour faced you. To get through with a lucky shot from the front means an inpratical number of LAWs fired, to what end? Attract attention from the MBT and its support elements?
As a testiment to the error of your points, several Abrams tanks were hit by RPG up to fifteen times rumbling through Bagdad and suffered no significant damage whatsoever. The combination of armour and tatics meant that the Iraqis resisting could never get a shot at the tanks' weak spot without being gunned down and the shots they could get off were wasted on the strongest armour.
And that homemade device that killed the Merkava was anything but small, it was a 250 kilo bomb, more then enough to kill even the strongest tank in the world.
Very True, in the battle for Grozny, After being initially mauled the russians re-grouped, adapted and changed tactics but in the end they paid a very dear price in terms of manpower equipment and materiel just to re-take and defend every single every building in the city took 60,000 troops against just 12,000 Chechian fighters, even then this was at times not enough.Originally posted by vaxjunior:Starving the city can be done if you are the US with tons of logistics and troops at hand. Remember, by starving the city, you are also need to feed your troops cordoning the city.
My two cents.
I doubt the quality of the Iraqi "army" was that deplorable back then. Rather consider why, some tanks, getting hit by RPGs nearly 20 times, all took their shots to their strongest areas?Originally posted by paulho:Every AT gunner knows that there is more than one way to disable at a tank, only the iraqiÂ’s are stupid enuf to shoot at the most shielded front of 1 of the most formidable tank in the world. I think saddam never sent his AT gunners for any training, mebbe save cost to build more palaces. In a sense the Americans were lucky they faced one of the lousiest trained armies in the world. Dun think will be so lucky if they faced off the Chinese or North Koreans using same AT weapons in a fibua environment.
As you say a tank is vulnerable at the top, rear and side being less shielded. Which means that any tank be it abrams, leclerc, T72 or amx13 already has such vulnerability.
In the given Chechnya ambush scenario where knowledgeable AT gunner teams are deployed in advantageous locations on high floors with full panoramic view of the oncoming MBT convoy into the canalised kill area where known vehicle movement is restricted and the tactic used which not uncommon is to disable the first and last vehicle thereby trapping everything in between for destruction.
Would you say that in such a scenario a lighter tank trapped in the center sharing same vulnerabilities which you speak in the MBT but being smaller and more nimble will be able to respond better and maybe escape destruction than itÂ’s heavier lumbering counterpart?
You also spoke of the armor tactics employed by the Americans when taking bagdad, being a gunner myself I am curious to know what these tactics are. Maybe you would like to share this information?I don't have the specifics but they apparently employed a type of rolling fortess convoy defence consisting of Abrams and Bradelys when they went on their armoured probes. Where every single unit covered his own quadrant and protected the flank of another. Anybody trying to get a shot in at the weak area of one of the AFVs will have to content with fire from the units guarding that flank.
I tend to disagree on that point. If I was the AT gunner in the ambush scenario and had to choose between 2 tank targets in a split second, I will go for the bigger broomstick first. 2 reasons.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:On the flip side, it's far more likely for a lighter tank to be caught in such a sceneriao because it is far more likely to get knocked out, even by a frontal shot, and lacking the firepower or armour to stay in the fight long enough to survive it.
And of course, the term "heavier, lumbering" is pretty much a misnomer as well, modern MBTs like the Abrams or Leopard have as much mobility then any light tank (in fact, more so then our AMX-13) and in an urban envionment, a 15 ton tank will block a road as easily as a 60 ton one. All that "mobility" (which is false anyway), hardly counts for much when you can't get anywhere.
So in such a sceneriao, one finds that the light tank actually fares far, far worse then an heavy unit.
That's why intelligence is extremely important, you can have the fastest, or most protected tank in the world and they won't be much good if you send them in blind. They very reason why the Ruskies failed miserably seems to be an effect of their poor training, inflexible thinking, lack of respect for the enemy, poor intelligence, and clunkiness in their movements, rather then a fault on their hardware.Originally posted by paulho:I tend to disagree on that point. If I was the AT gunner in the ambush scenario and had to choose between 2 tank targets in a split second, I will go for the bigger broomstick first. 2 reasons.
1) The surprise only last for a while. The bigger tank though more difficult to kill but is potentially more dangerous foe. All the AT will be gunning for it.
2) This one self intuition. The bigger tank more visible & has more 'target value' than a lighter one. Lighter tank has lesser value take second priority after all if bigger tank is stuck for the time being then so is the lighter one, can come back again for second round. [/quote]
Your points are not without merit, but I feel that there is a big flip side to this. A target can only be a target when it is present. Hence, when you have a convoy of light tanks, as opposed to MBTs, light tanks are still going to attract as much fire as an MBT for the reason that they are the only targets around. And the problem arises when light tanks are easily knocked out.
However, if you are talking in terms of a mixed convoy, then naturally a MBT would be an inviting target. However any savy AT gunner will know to knock out the light AFVs as they make as good a roadblock as any MBT, and not to mention they are easier to knock out.
Hence, mixing in light tanks with MBTs, one can conclude that light tanks are actually impose a liability. As they are more likely to stall a convoy when they get knocked out. An MBT can bash through a knocked out three tonner but it can't move a light tank out of the way, unless it has a dozer blade maybe.
In the end, you still need MBTs to protect the light tanks and take their fire for them for your point to work, without MBTs, the light tanks are toast.
[quote]And abt mbt mobility. In an ambush situation most likely one end of road in the kill area will be barricaded. If the big tank cannot move forward, light tank also cannot. But based on above 2 reasons within the limited confines in the midst of the chaos a lighter tank may have more chance to return fire or can at the very least dive into a hole or a small alley to escape destruction. Your mbt cannot move at all is a roasted duck for the dinner table.