SAF MBT(Main Battle Tank)
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Misleading pic.
Anyway, while an RPG can disable an Abrams with a critical hit, the damage control and fire suppresson systems usually leave the tank quite recoverable, that is, if you could recover a 70 ton tank in an hostile area.
The knocked out Abrams pictures are decieving. What happens when any piece of their hardware is disabled in a hostile area and cannot be recovered, the americans have this pratice of knocking out their own equipment to prevent it from falling into enemy hands.
Yes, they have that much money that they are willing to shoot up, call in missiles and drop smart bombs on their own disabled tanks on a mission over something as simple as an engine fire. In which case you would get a burnt out hulk like in the picture.
The only very serious damage I've seen caused to the Abrams by enemy fire was by an IED which flipped the tank into a ditch.
This picture will taken shortly after being attack by insurgent with a RPG-7.The engine caught fire and 1 tank crew was fatally killed,other will seriously injured.M1A1 is not invincible
They r many ways to killed a modern tank if u have the element of surprise.Of course u wouldn't hit the front of a modern MBT which is the thickness part. They suspect the insurgent fire RPG-7 at the engine or rear which is the less protected and the engine caught fire and burnt badly! -
any1 realized the M113 in the picture doesnt have any armour protection? Btw does Singapore have aplique armour for M113 ??havent seen it yet.
-
I thought bronix is mean to replace M113.Who cares abt those armour since bronix armour is thicker than M113!
-
Nope, Milan 2 does not have the tandem warhead. I believe it is the Milan 2T that has it, but I doubt we have any.Originally posted by panzerjager:Milan 2 should be tandem warhead weapon -
Oh well this is indeed war. Can have the thickest chobhamm armour but a small RPG finds a weak spot in the rear.
But american tankies have it far better then their russian counterparts, no doubt. -
so far the only 'modern' tanks we've having their slice of the action in combat are perhaps M1A2s, T-72s.
we can't say for sure which tank is the best or has the best protection. no tank is invincible.
somehow i believe that the news and pics flowing out of news agencies like ABC news, CNN etc etc, are news=pics which they want us , tv viewers to see.
so if they want us to see they usin an M1A1 tank to blow up another M1A1 tank which encounter a mechanical fault , blah blah.... they would show it. -
US has little control over their media,so most of the footage is real and non-bias. Vietnam war is a good exampleOriginally posted by foga:so far the only 'modern' tanks we've having their slice of the action in combat are perhaps M1A2s, T-72s.
we can't say for sure which tank is the best or has the best protection. no tank is invincible.
somehow i believe that the news and pics flowing out of news agencies like ABC news, CNN etc etc, are news=pics which they want us , tv viewers to see.
so if they want us to see they usin an M1A1 tank to blow up another M1A1 tank which encounter a mechanical fault , blah blah.... they would show it. -
Digressing, but media control over the Iraq is stricter than during the Vietnam War. Good examples of this is during the war when the media was "embedded" with the invading units and the reports filed had to be vetted by the COs of the units the reporters were embedded with.Originally posted by zenden9:US has little control over their media,so most of the footage is real and non-bias. Vietnam war is a good example
And the recent furore over the photos of coffins of American soldiers that were (and still are) banned from being shown to the media.
What the Americans don't have control over (and rightly so) is the press's movements in Iraq. I don't know about unbiased coverage, for I found the American network's coverage of the war and subsequent events terribly slanted and have stopped watching them altogether, preferring the BBC nowadays. I've just about had it up to here with American networks calling the Iraq war a "War against terrorism" and calling armed mercernaries "civilian contractors" (as if Blackwater is in Iraq to rebuild roads and repair schools) just because they come from the good ol' Red White and Blue. -
that was vietnam, donkey yearsssss ago.
footage itself could be real but their interpretation could somehow be biased. they only show how the saddam's footsoldiers terkan the prisoners. did they show the americans' ?
i felt that the female pte's, who was captured, rescue such a wayang.
americans news agencies are never non bias. they are propaganda machines of the gov of America.Originally posted by zenden9:US has little control over their media,so most of the footage is real and non-bias. Vietnam war is a good example -
Yes it does have applique armour at the side and front of the hull,Originally posted by rancour5:any1 realized the M113 in the picture doesnt have any armour protection? Btw does Singapore have aplique armour for M113 ??havent seen it yet.
check out these sites:
http://www.armouredengineer.force9.co.uk/bucket/sing113.htm
http://www.geocities.com/ptone50/ULTRA.htm -
Nah you are drawing up too many conspiracy theories. The Americans blow up plenty of their own disabled equipment. If they can't recover it, they'll blow it to kingdom come, that's what they do. I dunno about the british thou. It is routine enough that it rarely shows up in the media, nor make for exciting news. It's SOP for them.
And it does make sense for them. Unlike owners of PT-91s (you know who) or other technology that has switched hands several times, the Americans have plenty of secrets they want to protect and hence go to quite extreme means to do so. They recover every single piece of heavy equipment if they can, they certainly are not in the habit of leaving a disabled M1 in the middle of a hostile zone for looter to pick stuff from it for a few hours or even drag it away before they finally gain control of the area, if they ever. They'll blow that stuff up.
They dropped a smart bomb on the crashed apache that you saw early in the war, even though it wasn't really going anywhere.
If anything is indicative, pictures of their knocked out Abrams usually show minimal damage, ie. RPG to the engine grille or critical shot to a weak area. The Abrams isn't exactly a tank to brew up or burn like their russkie counterparts, save that atypical burning tank we saw on the news which must have had it's fire suppression system knocked out. If you see a picture of an M1 having taken serious damage, you can almost be sure it's a result of mailed explosive from friendly forces. -
how could you forget the British Challenger II. The Challenger II is more heavily armoured then the M1A2. The M1A2 is only impervious to ATGMs on the frontal arc, but the Challenger II has the same level of protection on the sides too. The Challenger II only lose out to the Abrams in speed and power-to-weight ratio.Originally posted by foga:so far the only 'modern' tanks we've having their slice of the action in combat are perhaps M1A2s, T-72s.
There was an AAR (After Action Report) from OIF about a Challenger II shrugging off around 70 RPG hits without being disabled. No bull, I'll post the link if I can still find it.
This tank has a different design philosophy from the American's a their M1 Abrams design. The Yanks preferred speed and power, hence they equipped the M1 with a powerful Turbine engine but sacrificed protection on the sides and rear, while the Brits emphasized on all round protection rather than mobility. -
U mean firing 70 RPG at the frontal armour? A smart RPG user will choose the weakest part of the MBT to attack if he has the element of surprise! Even 1 shot is enough,how abt firing at the gun-barrel stem. Once the Big-gun out,the big thing is nothing! Or how abt the engine compartment which is also the weakest protected as ventilation hole is required.Originally posted by SlowPoke:how could you forget the British Challenger II. The Challenger II is more heavily armoured then the M1A2. The M1A2 is only impervious to ATGMs on the frontal arc, but the Challenger II has the same level of protection on the sides too. The Challenger II only lose out to the Abrams in speed and power-to-weight ratio.
There was an AAR (After Action Report) from OIF about a Challenger II shrugging off around 70 RPG hits without being disabled. No bull, I'll post the link if I can still find it.
This tank has a different design philosophy from the American's a their M1 Abrams design. The Yanks preferred speed and power, hence they equipped the M1 with a powerful Turbine engine but sacrificed protection on the sides and rear, while the Brits emphasized on all round protection rather than mobility. -
Really? Clancy used to boast about how 1 M1 can take out dunno how many T-72s during Gulf War 1. And how this Apache made it back to base after a 105mm hit on its main rotor. Felt so betrayed when seeing burning M1s and downed Apaches during Gulf War 2. Dunno if these reports can be believed.Originally posted by SlowPoke:how could you forget the British Challenger II. The Challenger II is more heavily armoured then the M1A2. The M1A2 is only impervious to ATGMs on the frontal arc, but the Challenger II has the same level of protection on the sides too. The Challenger II only lose out to the Abrams in speed and power-to-weight ratio.
There was an AAR (After Action Report) from OIF about a Challenger II shrugging off around 70 RPG hits without being disabled. No bull, I'll post the link if I can still find it.
This tank has a different design philosophy from the American's a their M1 Abrams design. The Yanks preferred speed and power, hence they equipped the M1 with a powerful Turbine engine but sacrificed protection on the sides and rear, while the Brits emphasized on all round protection rather than mobility. -
There's no reason to disbelief these reports. After all, the Abrams may be tough, but it is not invincible. And also, in GF1, the M1 never fought in urban areas, but in ideal desert terrain versus dug in infantry and iraqi armour, to which they used the advantage of their technology to great effect.Originally posted by Langley:Really? Clancy used to boast about how 1 M1 can take out dunno how many T-72s during Gulf War 1. And how this Apache made it back to base after a 105mm hit on its main rotor. Felt so betrayed when seeing burning M1s and downed Apaches during Gulf War 2. Dunno if these reports can be believed.
In urban areas, the M1 fares less well, which is expected of almost any tank save the Merkava. It's no surprise. While in tank country you can almost always keep your front to the threat, in FIBUA, there is a likelyhood that some person might mail you and RPG to your rear. Once again, these things can only be managed so far by current technology, the rest is up to your intelligence, tatical coordination with supporting units and tatics. The technological excellence of the Abrams no doubt kept crew losses to a minimum.
Imagine if the they were using a russkie tank, which brews up at almost any penetration.
Also, it's good to note that the downing of the Apaches is not in any way a fault of the chopper itself, but mostly in part to poor tatics used by their pilots. In that fateful enagement in which an Apache attack got driven back by Iraqi armoured unit, the Americans used very poor tatics, coming in straight without cover and engaging the enemy staight on with almost no tatics, piecemeal, classic cold war style. No surprise how it would end out. The after action report for that incident didn't touch on the Apache itself, but on how the unit underestimated their enemy and went in dumb and blind without knowing that they were stirring up a hornet's nest.
In fact, it was the very fact that the AH-64 is a fine piece of engineering that these pilots survived their encounter at all. The loss rate of american equipment is usually a reflectance on the quality of their operators. If you have such fine tools, the finest in the world in fact, and still duff up the job, you can't blame the technology.
Of course, the american aversion to taking loss, the way the media fawns over them, unlike, say the russians, make every single one of their losses seem larger then life. But really, there's only so much a 70 ton tank can do. It's more of how you use it then grabbing a piece of technology and thinking you can just march into Bagdad.
Can the Gulf War 1 stories be believed? Certainly, there is nothing really strange about them.
Of course, if you know nuts about these units and don't really know their real capabilites and limitations, you might read these stories unobjectively and think that Clancy is trying, irregardless of his all-american bias, to sell progangada and end up thinking that the units he describes in his non-fiction works are invincible. Not really, things are just different now. -
i guess what the Americans need would be the ww2 german MAUS!Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:There's no reason to disbelief these reports. After all, the Abrams may be tough, but it is not invincible. And also, in GF1, the M1 never fought in urban areas, but in ideal desert terrain versus dug in infantry and iraqi armour, to which they used the advantage of their technology to great effect.
In urban areas, the M1 fares less well, which is expected of almost any tank save the Merkava. It's no surprise. While in tank country you can almost always keep your front to the threat, in FIBUA, there is a likelyhood that some person might mail you and RPG to your rear. Once again, these things can only be managed so far by current technology, the rest is up to your intelligence, tatical coordination with supporting units and tatics. The technological excellence of the Abrams no doubt kept crew losses to a minimum.
Imagine if the they were using a russkie tank, which brews up at almost any penetration.
Also, it's good to note that the downing of the Apaches is not in any way a fault of the chopper itself, but mostly in part to poor tatics used by their pilots. In that fateful enagement in which an Apache attack got driven back by Iraqi armoured unit, the Americans used very poor tatics, coming in straight without cover and engaging the enemy staight on with almost no tatics, piecemeal, classic cold war style. No surprise how it would end out. The after action report for that incident didn't touch on the Apache itself, but on how the unit underestimated their enemy and went in dumb and blind without knowing that they were stirring up a hornet's nest.
In fact, it was the very fact that the AH-64 is a fine piece of engineering that these pilots survived their encounter at all. The loss rate of american equipment is usually a reflectance on the quality of their operators. If you have such fine tools, the finest in the world in fact, and still duff up the job, you can't blame the technology.
Of course, the american aversion to taking loss, the way the media fawns over them, unlike, say the russians, make every single one of their losses seem larger then life. But really, there's only so much a 70 ton tank can do. It's more of how you use it then grabbing a piece of technology and thinking you can just march into Bagdad.
Can the Gulf War 1 stories be believed? Certainly, there is nothing really strange about them.
Of course, if you know nuts about these units and don't really know their real capabilites and limitations, you might read these stories unobjectively and think that Clancy is trying, irregardless of his all-american bias, to sell progangada and end up thinking that the units he describes in his non-fiction works are invincible. Not really, things are just different now.
ofcuz updated with current technology 
-
True, this a pretty fair assessment.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:There's no reason to disbelief these reports. After all, the Abrams may be tough, but it is not invincible. And also, in GF1, the M1 never fought in urban areas, but in ideal desert terrain versus dug in infantry and iraqi armour, to which they used the advantage of their technology to great effect.
In urban areas, the M1 fares less well, which is expected of almost any tank save the Merkava. It's no surprise. While in tank country you can almost always keep your front to the threat, in FIBUA, there is a likelyhood that some person might mail you and RPG to your rear. Once again, these things can only be managed so far by current technology, the rest is up to your intelligence, tatical coordination with supporting units and tatics. The technological excellence of the Abrams no doubt kept crew losses to a minimum.
Imagine if the they were using a russkie tank, which brews up at almost any penetration.
Also, it's good to note that the downing of the Apaches is not in any way a fault of the chopper itself, but mostly in part to poor tatics used by their pilots. In that fateful enagement in which an Apache attack got driven back by Iraqi armoured unit, the Americans used very poor tatics, coming in straight without cover and engaging the enemy staight on with almost no tatics, piecemeal, classic cold war style. No surprise how it would end out. The after action report for that incident didn't touch on the Apache itself, but on how the unit underestimated their enemy and went in dumb and blind without knowing that they were stirring up a hornet's nest.
In fact, it was the very fact that the AH-64 is a fine piece of engineering that these pilots survived their encounter at all. The loss rate of american equipment is usually a reflectance on the quality of their operators. If you have such fine tools, the finest in the world in fact, and still duff up the job, you can't blame the technology.
Of course, the american aversion to taking loss, the way the media fawns over them, unlike, say the russians, make every single one of their losses seem larger then life. But really, there's only so much a 70 ton tank can do. It's more of how you use it then grabbing a piece of technology and thinking you can just march into Bagdad.
Can the Gulf War 1 stories be believed? Certainly, there is nothing really strange about them.
Of course, if you know nuts about these units and don't really know their real capabilites and limitations, you might read these stories unobjectively and think that Clancy is trying, irregardless of his all-american bias, to sell progangada and end up thinking that the units he describes in his non-fiction works are invincible. Not really, things are just different now. -
Ya! Now days warfare heavily depend on technology and even a moderate commander can lead his men to great victories.That's why u see the budget of many countries shot up due to the heavy depend on smart weapon.As long as u have the most advance military technology,u have already won 70% of a conventional war!
-
Do not be mistaken though, the armour protection of the Challanger 2 is not any much more then that of an Abrams, in fact, both tanks can take RPG shots to their side. It really depends on where you zap really. All tanks are weaker on their sideskirts then say the side of their turrets. There is no reason to believe why the M1A1 HA series is any less armoured then the Challanger 2, the turtle-like apperance of the Challanger nonwistanding beside the Abrams clean lines. During the march into Bagdad, Abrams shrugged off multiple RPG hits with little problem. In fact, as we can see so far, most of their losses are due to critical hits and million dollar RPGs which just manage to find a weak spot.
Also it's good to note that there are a lot of M1s around in Iraq then Challangers, hence they are exposed to more fire and hence you will end up seeing hits and losses.
In fact, the armour protection, while classified for the M1A1/A2, probably exceeds that of all other MBTs for the very reason the Americans decided to use depleted uranium in their armour to add protection against KE rounds. This extra layer adds a lot of protection to the tank along with the normal chobham. On the frontal galacis, the M1 DU series is probably the most protected tank in the world. -
To tell the truth, I think the best tank is one that allows the operator and crew to survive. Any and every tank can be knocked out by the proviebial golden BB but the tank that allow his crew to survive it gets my vote. As far as I know, no crew of either the M1 or the Challenger have died as a result of a direct hit on the turret or hull.
Anyway, RHA figures online will never tell the full story. I think may either consistently understimate or overestimate. A good example would be China's newest T98Gai or the ZTZ-98 . If the figures are anything to go by, it should be as good as say a M1A1SEP. -
U shall not forget the Israeli merkava series tank which has a outstanding record of saving their tank crew.Originally posted by koxinga:To tell the truth, I think the best tank is one that allows the operator and crew to survive. Any and every tank can be knocked out by the proviebial golden BB but the tank that allow his crew to survive it gets my vote. As far as I know, no crew of either the M1 or the Challenger have died as a result of a direct hit on the turret or hull.
Anyway, RHA figures online will never tell the full story. I think may either consistently understimate or overestimate. A good example would be China's newest T98Gai or the ZTZ-98 . If the figures are anything to go by, it should be as good as say a M1A1SEP. -
The only reliable way to destroy tanks like the Abrams and Challemger is to drive a shaped charge through their underbelly.Two years back, the Hamas managed to destroy a Merkava with explosives detonated under the tank.Estimated to be about 60 kg of high explosives thoughOriginally posted by zenden9:U shall not forget the Israeli merkava series tank which has a outstanding record of saving their tank crew. -
I wonder how effective is the underbelly armour now fitted to Merkava tanks.Originally posted by kingkhong79:The only reliable way to destroy tanks like the Abrams and Challemger is to drive a shaped charge through their underbelly.Two years back, the Hamas managed to destroy a Merkava with explosives detonated under the tank.Estimated to be about 60 kg of high explosives though -
for the latest version of the merkava, most probably they should have spaced armour and reactive armour at the underbelly.but the same cannot be said for the Abrams and Challenger though.Originally posted by golani_bde:I wonder how effective is the underbelly armour now fitted to Merkava tanks. -
Originally posted by southpark2000:
yeah agree totally wif u on the terrain part.thats why the saf chose to develop the Bionix instead of buting an IFV off the shelf. the western IFVs like the Bradley and Warrior were simply too large and heavy for our liking. Notice the Bionix is very compact with very low frontal width,juz rright for squeezing in between trees in forested areas.The replacement for the sm1 will likely follow the dimensions of the Bionix and maybe juz about a few tonnes heavier.because the sm1 replacement needs to be light in order to be able to cross bridges,therefore a 120mm gun will not be mounted due to the high stresses imposed on the light chassis by firing of the gun.the main gun will definitely be 105mm.tat should be enough to penetrate the frontal armour of the PT91 being fielded by our neighbour.this has been shown by the Israeli merkavas mounted with 105mm during the lebanon war.the sm1 is being used more as a fire support vehicle rather than a dedicated tank killer since our neighbour doesnt have much tanks for us to kill anyway.tat explains why the replacement for the sm1 has been so slow in coming.the tank-killing part is better left to the Ah64 apaches.the sm1 will juz provide fire support and hold ground.i tink this talk about a system with missiles instead of a direct fire gun is a load of crap by the saf.dont know wat they tinking of.
Read b/w the lines, and consider the terrain we operate in.
[b]Established Facts
- SAF needs and wants a light-med. tank. No Abrams MBTs-like as the core
- This is due to forestted terrain with hills and mountains, and rubber plantations. There is little open plain for heavy MBT-operations. For strategic terrain, can call in your Tempests if they do fit, e.g. open highways
- Now because of the forestted terrain and mountains, etc. visibility is limited.
Hypothesised Conclusions
Given the facts:
- SAF wants a light-med armour tank to be able to operate in rubber plantation-like enviro.
- But light-med = relatively less protection
- As visibility is limited, the answer might lie in being able to destroy the enemy before you even see them, hence the indirect fire idea.
- Light tank = cannot carry heavy calibre shell weapons. The famous Sheredian is one such example (despite that, it remained in service for almost 20-30 years!); hence the idea of missiles thought they are expensive.
- Also, missiles are guided - hence accuracy goes up and chances of being detected by the enemy is less (less smoke, noise, etc.). You do not wish to miss a P-91 on yr 1st shot and face its 125mm gun.
Hypothesised gun system
- Likely to be a 120mm gun / mortar system
- Else a short barrel, low recoil 155mm gun
- 120mm could fire Israel LAHAT round / SPIKE missiles.
- There are guided / autonomous 120mm mortar rounds in the market.
- For 155mm, can fire autonomous BONUS / SMART cargo rounds...
- With 155mm, can fire missiles aka Sheredian...
Southpark
The Dude[/b]
some guys were talking about mounting the Spikes on a chassis to produce a missile system.taats workable but the Spike with its shaped charge is more for blowing small holes through armour to penetrate them.tats wat they do.juz good for blowing small holes through metal.if u r talking about a fire support system in which our sm1 is primarily being used for, then u need a direct fire main gun that can fire armour piercing and high explosive rounds.