Originally posted by gary1910:
Most countries in the world are still using so called "old tank",
for example IDF just recently retired their own Centurion and still
have many M60( upgraded of course) in svc.
(First of all, you are the acknowledged tank expert here, so I am
just offering some unsubstantiated opinions 
)
The IDF had retired their Centurions from the MBT role, not just
recently - but for nearly three decades. During the war in Lebanon
in 1982, IDF converted their already
obsolescent Centurion MBTs to specialised roles
and a heavily-armoured APC version called Nagmashot.
The IDF AMX-13 was made obsolete even earlier - despite being
upgraded to 90mm gun. (With a 105mm upgrade also available.) Why?
because they were unreliable, had thin armour that even a .5 HMG
could penetrate. And as a result suffered very heavy casualties and
did not fit with IDF's emphasis on crew survivability - which is
the prime objective of all Merkava designs.
The most modern tanks in SEA other than what SAF have is the PT-91
which is a actually an upgraded T-72M1( 30 y.o. tanks), so any old
tank with proper upgraded FCS, armour, powerpack etc , a old hull
could still performed, that is why there are still so many "old
tank"around in most armies.
First of all, not all the PT-91 Twardy are old tanks that has
gone through factory rebuilding. Some are brand new tanks. I don't
know if Malaysia got the rebuilds or brand new tanks, though. And
apparently, on the new tanks, the armour protection is very
impressive.
The T-72 was an impressive success to begin with. So you can still
upgrade it and it'll function for a couple more decades. But the
AMX-13 was a disastrous failure right from the start. Nearly every
country that operated it quickly phased it out like Israel and
India.
The AMX-13 is not a platform worth any further refurbishment or
modernisation. How much further can you go with such a
unconventional and strange design? You can't even fit a gun
stabilisation thing to the strange turret design which means you
have to stop, take aim, and then shoot. It'll be like WW2 all over
again.
Having a new tank in any armed forces is no easy task especially a
large qty, let's say qty of 300 tanks, the army will need to train
at least 300 set of crews, large group of maintenance specialists,
instructors, logistics etc.
Then there is cost incurred above plus the actual cost of modern
tank, a light tank today could easily cost at least USD2mil, if
it's include modern FCS with TI, BMS , composite armour, APS etc,
it could be as high as USD3~5mils!!!!
Therefore it is very large investment and it is not simple decision
to make especially when it will be used for at least 2~3
decades.
But isn't that true of any weapons procurement? But that hasn't
stopped SAF (or anybody) from buying new equipment. These include
submarines, stealth frigates, LSV, UAV, Primus, SAR-21...
etc.
Don't talk of money cos if you look at SAF procurement - it appears
we have very deep pockets.
Why go out and buy F-16, F-15 and phase out A-4 and F-5? Are the
A-4 and F-5 not able to fly? Anyone got problem with M-16? No, but
still we now got a schmancy new SAR-21.
For some reason, SAF feels constant progress is necessary in all
arms - except MBT. The buck stopped there. And we operate museum
pieces that are as old as their crew's grandparents.
We are supposed to be operating well over 300 tanks if you count
both the AMX-13 and Tempest published figures. So we must have at
least 300 sets of well-trained crews at any one time. So getting
them trained on another vehicle is a matter of time.
Lastly, there is this notion that some believe that tanks are
obsolete becos of modern land based ATGM, precision ATGM from
attack helos and fighters etc, some army are actually moving away
from having any tanks and instead using low cost wheeled fire
support AFV etc.
That is becos it was well demontrated in GW1, where most of the
Iraqi armour were actually decimated by fighters and attack helo,
way b4 the actual ground war started.
For example the Apaches itself destroyed 800 vehicles including 500
AFVs!!!
One thing tank for fire support role, tank is still needed, but for
tank vs tank senario, is it still neccessary????
Turn on the TV and you see news footage of Iraq. In the
background there is usually a big M1 MBT parked somewhere. Someone
forgot to tell the Americans and the Iraqis that heavily-armoured
MBTs are obsolete. Light wheeled vehicles like Stryker and Hummer
are being massacred by RPGs and homemade bombs.
(Israel, with all her tank experience in urban and non-urban
situations, is still going for tracks, heavy armour and tank
cannons.)
Iraqi convoys got massacred cos they had no air cover.
Why is it that because an MBT can be destroyed by aircraft, it
means an MBT is obsolete?
Nearly everything can be destroyed by enemy aircraft without air
cover, including jeeps, trucks, radar, ships, helos, soldiers. Does
that make all those things obsolete?
I dunno, becos with longer range ATGM as compare with tanks,
attack helo etc, it could still decimated a large armoured force,
that is why the SAF Gen was saying last year that SAF might be
looking having a light tank replacement using missile only, instead
of a tank gun!!![/b]
Well, look at the undisputed leader of armour - Israel. I don't
see them replacing their 120mm guns with missiles.
The US had a tank in the 70's called the M551 Sheridan. It had a
152mm little tube that fires missiles and conventional rounds. The
missile tank concept never quite took off and today, the US
continues to use cannons.
The argument was that a tank cannon is still faster, cheaper and
more versatile than a missile.
I don't know in detail what the SAF general said. But vehicles -
not necessarily a tank - mounted with ATGWs already exist in the
SAF inventory including LSV. If you can mount a TOW missile on a
bicycle, it'll also be able to kill a tank. So you don't need to
waste a tank by arming it with only missiles.
The tank, with its armour protection, is to provide a
punch (SAF Mailed Fist emblem) for ground troops
and also to destroy enemy tanks when encountered. But if your tank
is armed only with missiles, what does it do when it encounters a
fortified objective? Fire an ATGM?
And in the process, it must also lend itself to be invulnerable to
enemy fire as much as possible. So it needs heavy armour. Just
because ATGM can destroy a modern tank doesn't make the tank
obsolete. Cos enemy troops aren't always armed with ATGMs as if
these things are common currency. What's common however, are
infantry rocket-launchers like RPGs or RR like our 84mm. Any tank
we get must be able to withstand attacks from these weapons.
Otherwise it is about as useful as a pickup truck.
And if enemy aircraft shows up the right thing to do is to make
sure of our own air cover. And all armour must righlfully have its
own air defence elements like V-200 with RBS-70 etc.
Just because aircrafts can destroy tanks doesn't mean we don't need
tanks anymore. One system doesn't make another system obsolete - it
just compliments each other.
