Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MBTs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MBTs

    Just wondering, how many of you guys feel a MBT is required to deal with another MBT?

    The Singapore Army uses the AMX-13 tank. No doubt its upgraded to SM1 standard but still, a rather old tank. One with only a 75mm gun too. Their neighbour recently took delivery of Polish T90 (I believe) MBTs. Now Singapore has mentioned that they will be replacing their tanks in the future but apparently their former Chief of Army said that it might not be a tank. It could be a guided missile platform or something on an AFV.

    And there are rumours that it could be a tank based on the Bionix chassis (Bionix being the locally developed IFV).

    Would either of these be effective against an MBT? Or is a MBT required to deal with another MBT?

    I don't know much about tanks but from my noobish perspective, MBTs are heavy & difficult to transport so deployment could be slow. Also, the terrain in Singapore or Malaysia might not be really suited for MBTs?

  • #2
    It all depends.

    In some terrain dismounted ATGM teams are much better for dealing with enemy tanks. In other terrain anything but a tank will be at a severe disadvantadge when facing other tanks.

    So, it all depends.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by M21Sniper
      It all depends.

      In some terrain dismounted ATGM teams are much better for dealing with enemy tanks. In other terrain anything but a tank will be at a severe disadvantadge when facing other tanks.

      So, it all depends.
      Ok, but let's say in the Singapore - Malaysia context. Singapore being literally a concrete jungle with tons of buildings & really crammed. And Malaysia being slightly less crammed & more open space (heard the terrain is soft). What do you think is the best response to a MBT? Getting another MBT? Getting another light tank but with a higher calibre gun?

      Comment


      • #4
        I am just not familiar enough with the terrain to say.

        In an urban environment however, tanks are generally at a disadvantadge against dismounts.

        Comment


        • #5
          Never heard of a "Polish T-90". I may be wrong but the only countries i know of now equipped with the T-90 Series would be Russia and India.

          Comment


          • #6
            I think he meant the PT-90. Its an upgraded T-72.

            Comment


            • #7
              Tanks in my opinion are better on open terrain. I wouldn't want to launch tanks in the jungle or urban area. In urban area a tank could deliver firepower to knock out defenses within buildings, but they pretty much are a disadvantage. In open terrain however such in Iraqi desert a tank can make most of it's mobility and firing range. Jungles and such with a lot of obstructions probably not the best bet, because the enemy wants to be little as possible using the terrain as cover. A tank would simply be a big target in such terrains. In the current Iraq War M1 Abrams have been more damaged than actual tank to tank engagement in the desert in the previous war, but they still offer cover for infantry. I think M1 Abrams tank is was too designed for tank warfare. It seems that the M1 Abram was designed for the infantry to support the tank instead of the tank supporting the infantry. You know what I am saying? M1 Abram was designed solely to engage Soviet tanks in a tank battle in a european open terrain not for urban warfare, forrests, or jungle. I think a automatic 40mm grenade launcher would be a good weapon to mount on a armored vehicle instead of a 7.62mm machinegun. I would keep the 50 cal, but really MBT not good to engage foot soldiers unless they don't have any anti-tank weapon, or when you have the terrain on your side. It's a machine that is meant to engage other machines. Anti-material type of tool than a anti-personnel one. M-60 has cupolas for the machinegun peeps. A rifled gun would probably be better than a smoothbore gun against personnel. Russians have some type of shotgun round for their 125mm smoothbore, but don't know too much about it. It's suppose to spray spirracles at the enemy infantry? I guess that's what it's suppose to do.
              Last edited by metalbeast; 27 Sep 05,, 22:07.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by metalbeast
                Tanks in my opinion are better on open terrain. I wouldn't want to launch tanks in the jungle or urban area. In urban area a tank could deliver firepower to knock out defenses within buildings, but they pretty much are a disadvantage. In open terrain however such in Iraqi desert a tank can make most of it's mobility and firing range. Jungles and such with a lot of obstructions probably not the best bet, because the enemy wants to be little as possible using the terrain as cover. A tank would simply be a big target in such terrains. In the current Iraq War M1 Abrams have been more damaged than actual tank to tank engagement in the desert in the previous war, but they still offer cover for infantry. I think M1 Abrams tank is was too designed for tank warfare. It seems that the M1 Abram was designed for the infantry to support the tank instead of the tank supporting the infantry. You know what I am saying? M1 Abram was designed solely to engage Soviet tanks in a tank battle in a european open terrain not for urban warfare, forrests, or jungle. I think a automatic 40mm grenade launcher would be a good weapon to mount on a armored vehicle instead of a 7.62mm machinegun. I would keep the 50 cal, but really MBT not good to engage foot soldiers unless they don't have any anti-tank weapon, or when you have the terrain on your side. It's a machine that is meant to engage other machines. Anti-material type of tool than a anti-personnel one. M-60 has cupolas for the machinegun peeps. A rifled gun would probably be better than a smoothbore gun against personnel. Russians have some type of shotgun round for their 125mm smoothbore, but don't know too much about it. It's suppose to spray spirracles at the enemy infantry? I guess that's what it's suppose to do.
                Yeah, I did wonder about the logic of deploying MBTs in jungle and/or urban environments. I can imagine the MBT getting stuck between trees.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wnw
                  Just wondering, how many of you guys feel a MBT is required to deal with another MBT?

                  The Singapore Army uses the AMX-13 tank. No doubt its upgraded to SM1 standard but still, a rather old tank. One with only a 75mm gun too. Their neighbour recently took delivery of Polish T90 (I believe) MBTs. Now Singapore has mentioned that they will be replacing their tanks in the future but apparently their former Chief of Army said that it might not be a tank. It could be a guided missile platform or something on an AFV.

                  And there are rumours that it could be a tank based on the Bionix chassis (Bionix being the locally developed IFV).

                  Would either of these be effective against an MBT? Or is a MBT required to deal with another MBT?

                  I don't know much about tanks but from my noobish perspective, MBTs are heavy & difficult to transport so deployment could be slow. Also, the terrain in Singapore or Malaysia might not be really suited for MBTs?
                  before we go off topic. One must bear in mind the needs of the Singapore army. They do not have a strike force, it remains a purely defensive arm, and hence they do not need tanks to rumble over enemy defences and take on enemy tanks. They require a weapon system to defend against tanks - and their army chief is wise in investing in a ATGM based AT defence, as it is a cheaper option in maintaining a credible defence.
                  But if you change the senario and go back 30 years, then tanks were the only tank killers on ground (apart from arty in direct firing role). Today apart from tanks you have a range of ATGMs and RPGs, smart inf mortar ammo for 81mm and 120mm mortars, laser guided arty ammo. In fact, today a tank is a very vulnerable target on the battlefield.

                  Cheers!...on the rocks!!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by lemontree
                    before we go off topic. One must bear in mind the needs of the Singapore army. They do not have a strike force, it remains a purely defensive arm, and hence they do not need tanks to rumble over enemy defences and take on enemy tanks. They require a weapon system to defend against tanks - and their army chief is wise in investing in a ATGM based AT defence, as it is a cheaper option in maintaining a credible defence.
                    But if you change the senario and go back 30 years, then tanks were the only tank killers on ground (apart from arty in direct firing role). Today apart from tanks you have a range of ATGMs and RPGs, smart inf mortar ammo for 81mm and 120mm mortars, laser guided arty ammo. In fact, today a tank is a very vulnerable target on the battlefield.
                    Yes but the thing is, SHOULD a MBT or several MBTs come rumbling in, would a light tank, ATGM or whatever be able to defend their position? Which is what I asked at the start. Is a MBT required to deal with another MBT??

                    I mean laser guided arty is great but that's for long range. If some MBTs manage to breach the perimeter defence & come in close range, then what? Yes, infantry soldiers do have the Milan & the Spike but how effective are they against MBTs?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by wnw
                      Yes but the thing is, SHOULD a MBT or several MBTs come rumbling in, would a light tank, ATGM or whatever be able to defend their position? Which is what I asked at the start. Is a MBT required to deal with another MBT??

                      I mean laser guided arty is great but that's for long range. If some MBTs manage to breach the perimeter defence & come in close range, then what? Yes, infantry soldiers do have the Milan & the Spike but how effective are they against MBTs?
                      No, another MBT is not required to deal with another MTB.
                      To answer this, one must realise that tanks just cannot move on any ground. The number of tanks faced by any Singapore army unit will depend on the terrain. Though i am not aware of the terrain on the Malaysian-Singapore border, one can safely say that they will not face armoured charges as in deserts. That means the frontage will be small. The enemys' options can be further reduced by natural and man made obsticals. Co-ordinated tree plantations are a very simple and ecological method.
                      Each rifle company of most infantry battalions have 3 rocket launchers/ATGMs issued, apart from that they have two or more (as per sector or threat perception) battalion AT assets. This means that the rifle company has 5+ AT weapons against a frontage of say 300 mtrs (assuming that the company is organised for all round defence). If you add the Division AT assets of APC mounted ATGMS the AT assets increase per tank approach.
                      When the enemy form up at the FUP, the defender will call for arty fire on the enemy's FUP as it will be the artys' DF task (defensive fire task), if the defender has top smart mortar ammo like Merlins, then the enemy tank column will face attrition much before it reaches the FUP, the remaining tanks will face a barrage of ATGMs, since the enemy will mainly assault in 1 tank tp up formation if the approach is restricted. So 3 tanks will face 5+ AT weapons. The MTB crews will not have to time to say 'jack robbinson' before they get 'lit up' by those ATGMs.
                      Besides the mine fields in front of the defences are a tank crews fear, a disabled MBT is a sitting duck.
                      Last edited by lemontree; 29 Sep 05,, 05:12.

                      Cheers!...on the rocks!!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by lemontree
                        No, another MBT is not required to deal with another MTB.
                        To answer this, one must realise that tanks just cannot move on any ground. The number of tanks faced by any Singapore army unit will depend on the terrain. Though i am not aware of the terrain on the Malaysian-Singapore border, one can safely say that they will not face armoured charges as in deserts. That means the frontage will be small. The enemys' options can be further reduced by natural and man made obsticals. Co-ordinated tree plantations are a very simple and ecological method.
                        Each rifle company of most infantry battalions have 3 rocket launchers/ATGMs issued, apart from that they have two or more (as per sector or threat perception) battalion AT assets. This means that the rifle company has 5+ AT weapons against a frontage of say 300 mtrs (assuming that the company is organised for all round defence). If you add the Division AT assets of APC mounted ATGMS the AT assets increase per tank approach.
                        When the enemy form up at the FUP, the defender will call for arty fire on the enemy's FUP as it will be the artys' DF task (defensive fire task), if the defender has top smart mortar ammo like Merlins, then the enemy tank column will face attrition much before it reaches the FUP, the remaining tanks will face a barrage of ATGMs, since the enemy will mainly assault in 1 tank tp up formation if the approach is restricted. So 3 tanks will face 5+ AT weapons. The MTB crews will not have to time to say 'jack robbinson' before they get 'lit up' by those ATGMs.
                        Besides the mine fields in front of the defences are a tank crews fear, a disabled MBT is a sitting duck.
                        Thanks for the interesting insight.

                        Well Singapore is essentially an urban jungle. Helluva lot of buildings every where you look with very few forests or open spaces. M'sia probably has more forests & open spaces, but definitely their open spaces are not the size of what one would expect to find in Iraq for e.g.

                        And most parts of SEA experience quite a bit of rainfall, so I'd say the terrain is pretty soft in that sense.

                        Just a wild swing in the dark, but I think Malaysia would probably use their MBTs more for defence rather than offence. Those things can't be airlifted by C130 or Chinook. And sending them over to Singapore by sea is basically suicide. Singapore's Navy/Airforce will sink them before you can say "hoo ha".

                        As for literally driivng them over, I doubt that too. There are only 2 land entry/exit points & that's the Causeway & the Tuas Second Link. No one in their right mind will drive lumbering MBTs over 'cos firstly we don't know if the bridge will hold & secondly, they're gonna be sitting ducks for AT fire.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by wnw
                          And most parts of SEA experience quite a bit of rainfall, so I'd say the terrain is pretty soft in that sense.

                          Just a wild swing in the dark, but I think Malaysia would probably use their MBTs more for defence rather than offence. Those things can't be airlifted by C130 or Chinook. And sending them over to Singapore by sea is basically suicide. Singapore's Navy/Airforce will sink them before you can say "hoo ha".

                          As for literally driivng them over, I doubt that too. There are only 2 land entry/exit points & that's the Causeway & the Tuas Second Link. No one in their right mind will drive lumbering MBTs over 'cos firstly we don't know if the bridge will hold & secondly, they're gonna be sitting ducks for AT fire.
                          You are right and have just vindicated the Singapore Army Chiefs decision for opting for ATGMs mounts and not MTBs :)
                          See the sat pic from google. You can see 2 brigdes (on the left and top) joining Singapore to the main land of Malaysia. No tanks can charge through unless the bridges are capture, or the defender can just blow up the bridges.
                          Last edited by lemontree; 21 Dec 06,, 05:55.

                          Cheers!...on the rocks!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Singapore's armed forces is not defensive in nature. In fact, the opposite is true and this had upset our neighbours for the past decades.

                            Our defence doctrine is called "Forward Defence" - formulated to counter the Commie threat to SEA of the 70's. Forward Defence calls for Singapore to bring her forces into Malaysia/Thailand to fight the invaders before they reach the shores of Singapore.

                            After the Commie threat vanished, Singapore actively held on to the "Forward Defence" doctrine. Only, this time, Malaysia is the potential enemy and "Forward Defence" is merely a by-word for "First Strike" or simply - an "invasion" into Malaysia should hostilities seem imminent.

                            At any one time, Singapore has 60,000 men in active service. With mobilisation, the number goes up to 350,000. Malaysia can muster about half that number after mobilisation.

                            Malaysia have 16 x MiG-29, 8 x F/A-18, 15 x F-5E.

                            In total, the number of combat aircrafts now operational is 39. An order of 28 x SU-30MKM will soon be delivered.

                            Against this, Singapore operates 70 x F-16 C/D Blk52 Fighting Falcon, 50 x upgraded F-5E Tiger II.

                            Just counting the F-16 and F-5E, the numbers are 120 aircrafts.

                            Did not include the 120 x A-4S Skyhawk retired just this year to be replaced by 40 x F-15T Strike Eagle on order.

                            Since the 70's, we've operated about 350 AMX-13 light tanks. At that time, Malaysia didn't have tanks. Singapore also operate 100 Tempest MBT (upgraded Centurion).

                            (Against this number, Malaysia recently bought a modest 48 x PT-90 Twardy MBT.)

                            To call Singapore's Armed Forces "defensive" is being very understated.
                            Last edited by Chino; 29 Sep 05,, 18:10.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Malaysia's 48 PT-90 will definitely be used in an assault role as all MBTs should be. But the likelihood is that a PT-90-led assault will be a counterattack against an invasion force already on Malaysian soil. The MBT's stand no chance of crossing into Singapore. Even if they succeed they will be quickly destroyed once in Singapore.

                              It is true that we do not need an MBT to kill another MBT. Man-portable AT weapons are good enough. Similarly, Singapore's tanks are also for the assault role to support infantry.

                              But we should not assume that all of Malaysian's weapons are aimed at Singapore. Malaysia actually has a lot more border disputes with Thailand - which has a huge MBT force - and with Indonesia in Borneo.

                              The scenario of MBT being bogged down in SEA or stuck in plantations or forest is quite amusing. No one will be using tanks in the forest. Not even the Japs in WW2. Their little tanks mostly operated on roads to spearhead their drive and clear roadblocks.

                              And the "fact" that SE Asia terrain is too soft for MBT is just so much rubbish. A MBT can handle mud better than a wheeled vehicle a fraction of its weight.

                              Soft terrain - wasn't that what the tank was designed for in the first place?

                              Singapore, Thailand (big number of M-60A3) and Malaysia all have MBTs, what does that say about the "soft" terrain argument?
                              Last edited by Chino; 29 Sep 05,, 18:19.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X