PT-91 MBT

last SG · 2006-08-29T14:00:10+00:00

Not sure what you're geting at, all due respects. Perhaps we can look at the wars Israel fought with her heighbours. In all the wars, Israeli did not seriou...

papabear20046 SG

Its defense consists of 394 ERA, 108 placed on the turret, 118 on hull n 84 on each sides anti cumulative screens. The main ERA difference in PT-91 is they fit almost without gaps while on the Soviet modernised T-72 gaps reach 10 - 15 mm noticeably decreasing defense effectivity. Exp showed that ERA dynamic defense decreases high explosion stream proofing depth by 50 - 70 % n undercaliber projectiles by 30 - 40 %. Furthermore ERA doesn't detonate when hit by bullets, projectile or mine frag, burning napalm or petrol. PT-91 has thermosmoke device generating smoke screens from fuel n 24 grenade launchers fitted with smoke or anti-personnel grenades.

SM1's Turret armour thickness leave it blank.... Hull Thickness Front 15mm, Sides 20mm. So can main gun do double tap at same spot? Or do we have a tank gun tandem AT round? Would we even scratch it that's the question....Looks like more SPIKE ATGM orders

Shotgun SG

If the Israelis could lose more than 30 merkavas to ATGMs, I think we have enough of those to take care of T-72 makeovers. As with any vehicle, the most vulnerable part is the crew manning it. Concuss them enough, and they won’t be able to function effectively.

tankee1981 SG

Their PT-91M MBT though pretty impressive but their numbers is quite small compared to ours. With our 350 SM1(its replacement should not be too far away), Longbow Apaches, upgraded Centurion MBTs, its replacement and the Spike missile teams on LSV, their armoured forces is not much of a problem to us. We have also more experience dealing with armoured forces training up till divisional level.

What i am concerned about is their anti-armour capabilities. They have bought many types of ATGM namely Metis-M which is rumoured to have killed many Merkevas in the recent conflict.

beavan SG

armour is usually more afraid of infantry raids than full armour pushes

at least that is what i feel. cos when u fight infantry u wouldn't know when u are going to die. however tanks are difficult to hide tho

Shotgun SG

Heh, why bother with the METIS-M when a 50.cal anti material rifle can take out the engine block of the SM1 anyways? Needless to say, even AP rounds from their Adnans can easily disable our SM1s. Are they really THAT afraid of the Tempests? lol!

papabear20046 SG

ERA installed on Russian models rumoured to have been tested by the German Bundeswehr n the US Army. The Germans confirmed that in tests it shattered their 120mm DM-53 penetrators n in US, Jane's confirmed that "When fitted, ERA made the tank immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by 120 mm guns of M1 Abrams tanks"

Don't tink we buy or make another 350 tanks to replace 350 SM1, would u? Upgraded Centurions still in numbers? Still in use? Have replacement? Watever the case better have 120mm or larger main gun....Not all Longbow Apaches right?

Don't forget ERA on top of PT-91 original armour would make it thicker.

Poland has also modified its 125mm FSAPDS-T rounds with a new high penetration tip, with a claimed penetration of 560mm at 2 km

Metis-M may or may not have been bought ,look at wat else
http://www.cdi.org/russia/258-9-pr.cfm

But they have bought Baktar Shikan ATGM(Armour penetration 800 mm/Range max 3000 m)from Pakistan(Anza MKII shoulder-launched SAM n RPG-7 bought from them as well). Pakistan recommends its newly-developed "Al-Khalid" MBT too.

Total 48 PT-91 MBT bought. Bakhtar Shikan ATGM have been installed on the 211 Adnans AIFVs they have.

tripwire SG

since its a rumour... what do you want us to do? responding to a rumour is like swatting the moon, its stupid.

if it is true.. i am sure the polish would have continued to use their own PT-91 then buying leopard from germany...

of course... the american and russians would be busy copying the polish tech and the polish would be going to the press big time.. Mr. Green

moca SG

If the PT-91 does indeed prove undeafeatable by any or most of our current AT inventory, that'll be a real bummer... Mr. Green

When the North Koreans invaded at the start of the Korean War, neither the ROK nor the initial American ground troops had anything that could stop the T-34 the NKPA used. The ROK or the American initially had zero AT capability - not even one single AT mine. And their 2.75 inch bazookas couldn't even damage the T-34. Rockets from airplanes and shells from howitzers similarly had no effect.

The unstopable T-34 was the deciding factor that destroyed the ROK and then pushed the Americans all the way t the Southern tip of the Korean peninsula.

SpecOps87 SG

Well, in this day and age, it is no longer neccessary to kill a tank with another tank. It can be killed in many ways, infantry with ATGMs, tank hunter such as A-10 and many other choppers, Anti-Tank mines etc. So it should is not limited,and besides if all else fails, we’ve still got our good old IEDs which has been use so effectively by the tangos in Iraq.

maggot SG

This thing cannot float in swamps? Rolling Eyes

papabear20046 SG

So u want to see true or not when they come across? Or do u want to have some REAL tanks ready for them n not 350 paper tigers?

No tank is indestructible...even leopards n of cos PT-91. PT-91 with ERA is still all steel it's just that we don't even have anything to stop even that head on ....

BUT don't worry newer KE penetrators like the US M829A2 n now M829A3 have been improved to defeat the armour design of ERA. M829A2 was the immediate response developed to take on the new armour bricks. The M829A3 is a further improvement of this as well n designed to fight future armour protection methods.

That's why the poles bought leopard from germany Smile

Even if REAL tanks fail we still have IEDs n AT mines n LAWs n 84RR waiting for them....dirty but it works...just look at iraq... Laughing

gary1910 SG

O.5 AP rds to penetrate SM1???

Well that's debatable.

There was a rumour from a foreign source that have worked with ST that the frontal and even the turret armour was upgraded to handle up 20mm!!!

Even our old M113 APC was upgraded to handle 14.5mm(Ultra) , that is according to Jane.

As for Bionix, with composite armour is even better than the Ultra.

gary1910 SG

We have plenty of Spike ATGM, afterall we manufactured them in-house plus Apaches with Hellfire, that is more than sufficient a mere 48 PT-91s.

As for MBTs, many reports said that we have at least 100 of them, anyway I dun think any of armour will have to face the mere 48 PT-91s , becos when we achieve air-superiority , chances that they will pick off with Apaches or airstrikes as soon they are detected.

Shotgun SG

Heh, I'm not gonna debate whether it is able to penetrate or not. This was something that was told to me by one of the armor warrant officers. The question is not whether the 50cal can penetrate or not, (account for deflection), its what kinda damage can it do IF it penetrates. For one thing, the chances of it triggering a catastrophic explosion is a hell lot lower.

0.5 cal anti material rifle, a few well placed shots at the engine block or the driver should disable the vehicle.

In anycase, my point is that a Metis-M, tandem warhead ATGM is a huge overkill for an SM1.

Honestly speaking, our SM-1 numbers may not be as numerous as claimed. I've seen quite a number SM-1s or AMX-13s (un-upgraded, stripped down, rotting, rusting) lying in "storage" cos they couldn't be condemned.

Hence, those Metis-Ms are not directed at our "numerous" SM-1s in particular. IMO, our BXs are a bigger threat to them.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Dun rely too much on IEDs hor… they are massively inefficent ways of killing tanks and are subject to many things like how much munitions you have around and the ability to rig them up.

gary1910 SG

One thing , no one truly know how many we have becos all of them is estimates, the reason is we went to many countrries in the 70s to 80s to buy many their of retired vehicles and planes etc, put in new engine, electronics etc when we built up SAF.

For example, estimate of M113 is abt 720~1000s, AMX-13 is around 350, Tempest from 60~100s , Skyhawk 60~80 etc.

And they serve us well, we got it cheap , refurnished/upgraded them, so the exact number is unknown and SAF was built up with a large force with a pretty low budget and more than sufficient to handle the threat in SEA.

papabear20046 SG

It's true with Spikes n Hellfires we can stop 48 PT-91 but they r asking around to buying Sukhois fighters n maybe Tiger or Rooivalk attack copters. Sukhois heard they ordered but no news after a while. Russians sell almost anytink if they sold MI-28A/N HAVOC attack copter then that would be quite a match to watch if they throw in SAMs systems as well. So Sukhois,russian SAMs,MI-28A/N HAVOC, long range artillery,MLRS, russian ATGMs,many differ ATGMs n SAMS from other countries, counter artillery radars,CAS planes,F-18s,MIG-29s n others etc......Wat they have we don't, wat we have they have n more....We must at least match one with the other, getting "counter systems" to wat they use

SpecOps87 SG

No matter how high-tech or advancely sophisticated your hardware is, if there’s a lacking in heartware, the will to win is lost. We have a reason to fight for we have more to lose then them. Thus we are very unwilling to lose.

sgf SG

And this will spark off an arms race. THe only ppl who will benefits are the arms manufacturers. I think the recent "failure" of the US army in Iraq & Afghanistan and the problems the Israelis are facing in Lebanon show that military might isn't everything.

Arthas79 SG

Honestly, they never truly buy what they say and use what they buy. And they make lots of noises about things which they dont have currently. They do have superb forward thinking I would think. They would claim to have an interest in something and think about it for years up to even a decade or more. And never really come to a decision. Thier purchases are more reactionary as opposed to revolutionary. The PTs are a counter to what we have albeit in lesser numbers than they could possibly hope. Russian tanks have`nt exactly fared well in major wars i think in spite of inflated hyperbole; which applies to thier air-craft fighters as well.