Comparison of MBTs that the RSA could possibly purchase
-
First off,the RSA(Republic of Singapore Army),as well all know,has the Tempests,and rumours abound that we purchased either Leclercs or Merkavas to add to their numbers,though I personally don't know whether that is true.
As can be seen currently,MBTs have been demonstrated to good effect to be used in urban warfare,in FIBUA environs,as the Israelis have shown in their control of the Palestinian territories,as the Russians have demonstrated in Chechnya,and more recently in the adoption of tactics and strategies similar to the Israelis,now used by the Americans in their Iraqi occupation.They have shown their usefulness in facilitating the presence of heavy firepower to supplement infantry and their armour and presence is an asset in being durable and resilient enough to draw fire away from more vulnerable elements.
In the defence of Singapore with its FIBUA environment,roads are heavy enough to support 70 ton MBTs,from somwhat limited knowledge(if anybody knows better,please comment).
A list of MBTs that we could possibly use are as listed with their various pros and cons.These are taken courtesy of WAFF.
the statement:
Most people would say it's the American M-1 Abrams. Their reasoning would be simple; the M-1 has actually fought in two wars since 1991 and handily defeated whatever was sent against it. Tank buffs, however, tend to look more closely at details casual observers ignore. The buffs tend to consider the German Leopard 2A6 as superior to the latest model M-1A2. The Leopard 2A6 has a longer 120mm gun barrel, giving it's shells greater penetration. The Leopard also has reactive armor for the top of the tank, where the latest top-attack missiles seek to penetrate the thinner armor there. The Leopard also has a number of other novel touches, like a video cam facing to the rear of the tank, and hooked up to a screen in the drivers compartment. This allows to driver to go into reverse more quickly and confidently. Backing up quickly is a frequently used combat maneuver. The Leopard also has a diesel engine, rather than the fuel guzzling gas turbine (jet engine) of the M-1. Thus the M-1 has a little more zip, but the Leopard gets much better gas mileage.
But a tank does not stand by itself. It is part of a combat force, and the most important component is the crew. In this department, the M-1 has several advantages. Most importantly, American tank crews have had a lot of combat experience since World War II, German crews have had none. While German training is good, they are still using conscript crews, while U.S. tankers are all volunteers and in service longer. American combat doctrine has also developed more rapidly than Germany's and currently makes heavy use of the battlefield Internet and superior situational awareness. All of this makes an enormous difference. A tank is not the sum of all it's parts, it's only as good as the system it operates within. Here the M-1 has a big edge. Moreover, the Americans get an additional slight edge because of their willingness to use depleted uranium in their composite armor, and tank shells. Then again, if the U.S. and German switched tanks, the Leopards with American crews would be superior.
The other tanks in the "top ten" are remarkably similar. Most have composite armor, and often reactive armor as well. All have guns similar to the M-1 and Leopard's 120mm smoothbore. The British Challenger 2 is usually ranked third. But, again, because the British armor units have had combat experience since World War II and use volunteers, they have an edge. Because the Americans have more proven combat technology, the M-1 would still be first, but the Challenger 2 would be second and the German Leopard third.
Things really get interesting when you try to fill the fourth place slot. There are a lot of high tech tanks out there. The French have the LeClerc, the Japanese have the T-90, the South Koreans have the Type 88/120 and Israel has the Merkava 4. Again, the edge should go to the tank that has the best crews and the most combat experience. That would be the Merkava 4. While lacking a lot of the gadgets of the other tanks mentioned above, the Merkava has an edge because of combat experience and crews with years of working together. Although most Israeli tank crews are reservists, many of the troops have combat experience and the crews often stick together for decades. This makes for very effective crews and tank units.
Fifth place belongs to the South Korean Type 88/120. This tank was developed by the same people who created the M-1. Some call it the "Baby M-1", as it is a bit lighter than the M-1 (51 tons versus nearly 70 tons), but otherwise uses the same design principles. Most important is the fact that the South Korean crews know that they have a deadly foe just to the north. This provides a little pucker factor to the training, which is run using a lot of American techniques.
Sixth place is tricky and is a toss up between the French LeClerc and the Japanese Type 90. The edge goes to the Japanese tank. Both vehicles weigh about the same and use similar weapons. But the Japanese have better electronics and crews that have been together longer. Plus, all things considered, I be a little more fearful of a bunch of Japanese crews in their Type 90s than French crews in their LeClercs.
Seventh place, by default, goes to the LeClerc.
Eighth place would be the Russian T-80UM2. This tank uses a lot of new protective technology (to detect and defeat anti-tank missiles), several armor systems and lots of electronics. Unfortunately, the workmanship is slipshod and the crews mostly conscripts and poorly led.
Ninth place goes to the new Chinese Type 98. This is another of those "improved T-72s." Lots of improvements, though, many of them similar to what's found in the Russian T-80UM2. The workmanship on these vehicles is a little better than on the T-80UM2, but the Chinese don't have as much experience building tanks. This has shown itself in the numerous technical glitches that have shown up. The Chinese are moving to volunteer crews and more intensive training.
Tenth place goes to the Russian T-90, which is actually an upgraded T-72. Not as effective an upgrade as the T-80UM2 or the Chinese Type 98.
Most of the remaining tanks in the world are Russian T-72s and T-55s, and US M-60s and M-48s. China builds clones of these Russian tanks, and other countries build variations on the T-72 and older British tanks. The M-60s, with the latest upgrades (thermal sights and computerized fire control systems) and well trained crews could be contenders for the 8-10 positions. But all those T-72s and T-55s serve largely as targets. However, as experience in the Arab-Israeli wars and World War II amply demonstrated, technically "inferior" tanks with superior crews will rule the battlefield.
As the article
As the above basically says,you can have a shitty tank but with a well-trained and experienced crew,you can mostly nullify any advantage the other tank has.
However,I want to bring attention to the Type 88/120 MBT developed and used by South Korea aka the "Baby M-1" which is based on the M-1 design and weighs in at 51 tons.It is clearly much lighter than equivalent tanks in its class and if upgraded with the requisite tech and provided with the trained personnel,it should be able to fulfill our needs,providing a relatively lighter armoured presence serving in the role of the MBT that is more mobile than equivalent MBTs. -
The discussion is already moot.Originally posted by Sardaukar:First off,the RSA(Republic of Singapore Army),as well all know,has the Tempests,and rumours abound that we purchased either Leclercs or Merkavas to add to their numbers,though I personally don't know whether that is true.
As can be seen currently,MBTs have been demonstrated to good effect to be used in urban warfare,in FIBUA environs,as the Israelis have shown in their control of the Palestinian territories,as the Russians have demonstrated in Chechnya,and more recently in the adoption of tactics and strategies similar to the Israelis,now used by the Americans in their Iraqi occupation.They have shown their usefulness in facilitating the presence of heavy firepower to supplement infantry and their armour and presence is an asset in being durable and resilient enough to draw fire away from more vulnerable elements.
In the defence of Singapore with its FIBUA environment,roads are heavy enough to support 70 ton MBTs,from somwhat limited knowledge(if anybody knows better,please comment).
A list of MBTs that we could possibly use are as listed with their various pros and cons.These are taken courtesy of WAFF.
the statement:
[
As the above basically says,you can have a shitty tank but with a well-trained and experienced crew,you can mostly nullify any advantage the other tank has.
However,I want to bring attention to the Type 88/120 MBT developed and used by South Korea aka the "Baby M-1" which is based on the M-1 design and weighs in at 51 tons.It is clearly much lighter than equivalent tanks in its class and if upgraded with the requisite tech and provided with the trained personnel,it should be able to fulfill our needs,providing a relatively lighter armoured presence serving in the role of the MBT that is more mobile than equivalent MBTs.
Read Jane's. We already have MBTs. Foreign made ones.
Although why a MBT might be useful in a FIBUA env, i have no friggin idea, as BUAs aren't good for armor.
Tanks love desert.
"They have shown their usefulness in facilitating the presence of heavy firepower to supplement infantry and their armour and presence is an asset in being durable and resilient enough to draw fire away from more vulnerable elements."
You got that right. Tanks are fire magnets.
Pstt, if your really really interested in Armor, why not opt for it during bmt?
granted, you'd have 6 months less to play with your veh, but...
On the other hand you could go to service side, and fraternise with Armor people. Maybe you'd have a nugget of info.
I have one. Pm me if you want it. -
Oplot Main Battle Tank
[/img]
The Oplot MBT is a further development of the T-84 MBT fitted with a NATO 120mm smoothbore gun fed by a bustle-mounted automatic loader.
The Oplot MBT uses locally produced components and subsystems, although systems of foreign origin can be incorporated at the customer's request.
This MBT was designed in 2000. Its design features the technical solutions tested during modernisation of T-72-120 battle tank.
In some publications the Oplot MBT was also referred to as the KERN2-120 (name of prototype) or the T-84-120.
The Oplot MBT tailored to meet the Turkish Army requirements is called the Yatagan.
The Oplot MBT armament includes a 120mm gun with chrome plated barrel, 7.62mm coaxial machine gun, and 12.7mm anti-aircraft machine gun. The tank crew is also equipped with sub-machine guns and a signal pistol.
The main armament comprises a 120mm smoothbore gun to fire NATO-standard ammunition. The gun is fed by a bustle autoloader and fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor (bore evacuator). The gun has a quick-replacement barrel which can be changed under field conditions without the need to remove the gun from the tank.
A total of 40 rounds of ammunition are carried. The bustle-mounted automatic loader contains 22 rounds of ready-use ammunition with a further 16 rounds stowed in the additional stowage place - the conveyer located in the hull, and two more rounds are stored in the fighting compartment. Types of ammunition that can be fired by the gun include rounds of all types and purposes developed in compliance with NATO standards - STANAG 4385 and STANAG 4110 (APFSDS-T, HEAT-MP-T etc), as well as Ukrainian-made laser beam-riding guided missiles.
The coaxial machine gun can be aimed and fired either from the gunner's or commander's station.
Dimensions
length (gun forward) m 9.664
length (hull) m 7.705
width (over tracks) m 3.595
width (with skirts) m 3.775
height (turret roof) m 2.215
height (including roof-mounted 12.7mm MG) m 2.76
Ground clearance m 0.515
Track width m 0.58
Track m 2.8
Length of track on ground m 4.29
General characteristics
Crew 3
Combat weight t 48
Power-to-weight ratio hp/t 25
Ground pressure kg/cm² 0.93
Max road speed km/h 65
Average cross-country speed km/h 45-50
Fuel capacity lt 1300
Operating temperature range °C -40 to +55
Cruising range
road km 540
cross-country km 350-400
Fording without preparation m 1.8
with preparation m 5
Gradient % 63
Side slope % 36
Vertical obstacle m 1
Trench m 2.85
Engine Model 6TD-2 twin-stroke, multi-fuel, liquid-cooled 6-cylinder diesel engine, fuel injected, developing 1,200 hp at 2,600 rpm
capacity hp 1,200
at crankshaft rotation speed rpm 2,600
Transmission mechanical, epicycle train with 7 forward and 5 reverse gears
Suspension torsion bar
Armament:
main 120mm smoothbore gun
coaxial 7.62mm KT-7.62 machine gun
anti-aircraft 12.7mm KT-12.7 machine gun
Ammunition for main armament rds 40 (22 in automatic loader)
for coaxial machine gun rds 4,000
for anti-aircraft machine gun rds 450 -
Obvious not a singapore sotong. No-one in my 20+ years experience call the various "peng lang" RSA, sounds like republik sud afrika. We all camo green tinted, mosquito repellent covered, dog biscuit munching ppl call it "SAF" lah!Originally posted by Sardaukar:First off,the RSA(Republic of Singapore Army),
Other kulture vulture tips:
"Blur like Sotong" - why? because sotong (calamari or squid to the squaddies) have many hands, swim backwards, easily caught by shinning a bright light on dark night.
"Gabarra zebra" - "Kan chong" in hokkien or easily confused person, becauses it rhymes. (? dazzle paint scheme)
"Talk cock like sing song" - speaking rooster, shooting the wind duh as if you were singing along!
"Chinese helicopter" - chinese educated or "hudicated". -
Originally posted by Sardaukar:
Why he use RSA and their numbers.....SPY DETECTED..,.!!!!
First off,the RSA(Republic of Singapore Army........[b]their numbers,though I personally don't know whether that is true.
.[/b] -
My definitions that I use are technically correct.
We have the Singapore Armed Forces,which has 3 branches-
Army(RSA)
Navy(RSN)
Air Force(RSAF) -
There is no such thing as RSA. Sounds so dumb. Simply known as the army.
-
It's call (simply) Singapore Army. Kind of like there's an RAF and a RN but no "Royal Army"......
I like the K1A1 -
Seriously doubt the army will get MBTs. It was mentioned that there are plans to replace the ancient AMX13-S1 but the replacement may not be a tank but something with similar capabilities. It was even stated that this "replacement" may not even have a direct fire weapon i.e. main tank gun but could use rockets instead.
To me, that's an indication that they could be looking at wheeled armoured vehicles. Stuff like the Piranha or ST Kinetic's Terrex. After all, the Terrex comes in 3 variants, 1 of which has a 105mm main tank gun. Main advantage of these vehicles would be their speed, agility & ability to be air-lifted.
So with them looking at non-traditional platforms, I think MBTs would be the last thing on their minds. But IF they do explore MBTs, I think the German Leopard 2 or French LeClerc would be good options. Actually the Israeli Merkeva IV also not bad, but of course M'sia sure to kaopei & give that crap about us being lousy neighbours & not considering the sensitivities of M'sia.