I completely agree that it is great to have these light tanks to
support infantry, but if these light tanks can be easily destroyed
by 0.5HMG and RPGs, then it would be a very bad thing for our
highly-trained tank crews to be wasted like this.
Can we up-armour the AMX-13?
Forget the Stryker. Tracks are good, wheels are bad IMO.
And the armour on the Stryker is paper thin due to the need for
airborne deployment. So the Stryker, M113 has the same problem with
the AMX-13 of being easily destroyed by 0.5HMG and RPG.
Unless you do like the IDF and completely up-armour the hull of the
M113, otherwise it is another death-trap. Along with up-armouring
the hull of the M113, the IDF also uses ex-MBT hulls of Centurion
etc and turn them in super armoured APCs.
Also reference the Merkava series. Engine in front, slow and heavy
for a modern MBT. Why? Heavy armour protection for the crew.
What does this tell you about these superb users of armour? Wars
have taught them that armour protection is primary importance over
and above all other considerations in the IDF.
And the issue with our large force of M113 and AMX-13 and AMX-10PAC
is that armour protection is very low.
While it is nice to have something light enough for airborne
deployment, this makes the air-deployable AFV an interim platform
at best and once situation stabilises, you must bring in the
heavier armoured stuff otherwise your crews in these light vehicles
will be dogmeat to cheaply available RPG-7s.
And I'm rather skeptical of this air-transportable
"power-projection" requirement for armoured vehicles for
Singapore.
We are SAF, not USMC. We do not need to "power-project" to far off
exotic locations - we shouldn't.
Let other people sort out their own mess. We just need to have a
very kilat amphibious landing capability as our main threats are in
the neighbourhood.
The reason ST Kinetics is making everything air-transportable is
because the main aim of STK is exporting - hopefully - to the USA.
For SAF, air transportability of AFVs is a "nice to have", but I
think not absolutely necessary.
Crew protection is what SAF is seriously lacking.
True, no really great amphibious tanks had ever been produced
even during WW2 when there was so much emphasis. So it must mean
one thing: it is very, very difficult to build good amphibious
tanks as it is impossible to compromise between "flotability",
armour protection and speed in the water.
Anything being able to do both - ie swim in water and fight on land
- usually means it is good at only one or worse: bad at both.
So I think we shouldn't even look at buying another amphibious
tank. The concept should be a plaform that will swim the tanks
individually onto shore in double quick time. So maybe look at
building super agile LST, not another amph tank.
Or look at another way to design amphibious tanks. Most amph tanks
are basically armoured vehicles trying to do a boat's job while at
sea. Why not turn it upside down and design a armoured boat that
can do a tank's job once ashore?
