SAF MBT(Main Battle Tank)

last SG · 2004-04-07T21:52:33+00:00

Does it matters!!! I would rather have a Pyschologically consoling Naval Fleet Inspection during the national day 2007.

bank-yuppie SG

Hi there,

anyone here know what MBT SAF is using? I know about the lousy WWII era Centurion MBTs upgraded with Israeli equipment. But I heard rumours that we have a modern MBT with a 120mm gun. There aren't many 120mm out there right? I'm not sure cause I'm not a tank nut. It definitely can't be the M1A1 so that leaves the British Challenger, Merkava Mk III or maybe the German Leopard or even the French LeClerc??? Ok that's about all the 120mm tanks I know. Correct me if there's an error in the 120mm tanks. Cause I'm not too sure. Oh is it true the SAF centurions are painted in olive green and always covered with canvas? I'm just really curious about the tanks since the AMX-13SM1 can't be our only tank. In reality I don't even think its a tank. It seems to be built more like a tank destroyer. What do you guys think? Help a clueless fellow out. Rolling Eyes But I can't imagine a Merkava on our roads but it'll be interesting to see though. Embarassed

gary1910 SG

You're new here , pls read this b4 you post :

http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=73265

No one should post anything classified even they knew abt it, therefore you will not get an answer from here now.

subudei SG

New MBT with a 120mm gun?

Not sure how much use M1s, Challengers, Leclercs or Leopards would be in this tropical environment.

Anyone has any idea what the Malaysian Army's combat doctrine for its T-72s is? Can't imagine those monsters being used for anything more than city defence. Most roads in this part of the world would collapse under the weight of a Western MBT, no?

khaiseng SG

not to mention the change in doctrine for the support unit like engineers have to make like increasing the witdth of the MSR and ASR, bridges to support the crossing of the MBTs, etc

spencer99 SG

I don't agree that the Centurion is useless... if served us well for decades.

When it was in service, there is no other country in the region that has MBTs so Centurion is actually good enough.

Now with Malaysia gettting Improved T72s, it is time to get better MBTs ourselves.

spencer99 SG

Actually the AMX-13 is built as a Tank Destroyer. Think armour and "powerful" main gun. In its time (long time ago), the 75mm gun is enough to put to rest other opponents.

As to the new SAF MBT, it is classified. So for those who know, better keep our mouth shut! Neutral

divadmil SG

I apologise for not answering the question as I seriously don't know the answer... However, I have been following this topic keenly and this is my POV:

Good point about the support elements which will go in with the MBTs. Not much point just slugging it out with just tanks. It needs to be a combined arms team with infantry, artillery, close air support (CAS) and engineer support. Send in a battalion of MBTs without support into a battle and they will be decimated.

This would mean that our future MBT (and I think it will be a matter of time) should be able to work with the various elements we already have now. We already have self-propelled artillery, the AH-64D Apache and the Bionix IFV so the next step will be a tank which could work with the other elements.

Frankly, I think what we need is a Mobile Gun System (MGS such as the US Stryker) rather than a full-fledged MBT. The XM8 Buford would have been a good choice but that fell victim to budget cuts. Alternatively, we could also pick up 1st generation M1 Abrams (like what Australia recently did) and modify the hack out of them and we will still have a tank which is far superior to what our neighbours have.

Any counter-arguments?

alphanumeric SG

from my point of view, MBTs are actually quite ‘useless’ especially when u talk about defending singapore… firstly, urban combat is something every tanker fears… the possibility of a soldier hanging out from a window with an rpg is just too likely… what we can do is to have light tanks like the south african Stingray… i’m not that sure about the stingray’s origin, but yep, it’s a light tank with a 105mm cannon and sophisticated firing control system… light tanks with big guns will be more suited for our regions terrain, but there is always the consideration of maintenance and recoil forces and stuff like that… i rest my case..

spencer99 SG

MBTs will be more suited to an offensive role. The main doctrine (not classifed info) of the SAF is to go on the offensive.

As such MBTs will be suited for its "shock effect", firepower and mobility.

panzerjager SG

In response to this in-lieu of spencer99's 10.23am post on 7 Apr in the same thread:

In fact, Russian style modern MBTs are by most if not all accounts, more agile than any of the Western style MBTs, primarily because of their prevailing ex-Soviet doctrine in the employment of MBTs, i.e.
in an offensive role, tank maneuvers involving charging down relentlessly headlong towards the mission objective, ignoring enemy resistance. This is quite unlike Western style tactics in which mopping up operations are carried out progressively along the line of advance. In essence, the Russians had harnessed the true purpose of the tank...

So in the light of using the tank in this way, the Russians preferred their tanks to be light but powerful enough to provide the charge, and making them cheap and in numbers helps in the curtain effect in overwhelming the enemy. This ultimately meant that Russians traded away a lot of protection to achieve this. Which is why Russian MBTs are normally seen with add-on reactive armour to circumvent their inherent lack of protection.

So do not underestimate the potential value of Russian style MBTs used by potential adversaries against us. Unfortunately our own military is still too steeped in the Western style of warfare tactics to allow for a radical paradigm shift in their own doctrines.

Joe Black SG

ya, and I believe the best tank tactics are employed by both the Germans and Japanese in WWII (which the Russian Army tries to copy, and General Norma Schwarzkopf employed in the first Gulf war. Tanks are best employed with the Blitzkrieg tactics. But with the poliferation of ATGMs, I believe that a mix of Tanks, AFVs and Armoured Infantry is the best solution, speed, firepower, 360 degree protection (ie, infantry protects Tanks and AFVs from anti-tank guys, tanks and AFVs protect AI from GPMGs.

Urban warfare is a totally different cattle of fish in my POV. The side with the best "crack" troops and snipers will win. In a documentary about US Marine in FIBUA training, their casualty rate was 50% or more consistently. That was one of the reason US Army now place so much emphasis in getting the new generation of smart weapons and vehicles (eg. OICW, ST's Section Support Weapon, ST's new unmanned vehicles, etc).

RAVEN101 SG

No matter wat can of crap they got my unit will whack them 2 scrape metal b4 they can get near Very Happy

spencer99 SG

For a Hi-tech armed force, urban battle will negate the advantages that you have in terms of material and technology. Look how the Rangers got mauled in the streets of "Mog" in Somalia.

If you are "low-tech", you would want to play urban to minimize your disadvantage in Technology. That is what Saddam try to do in GW II, but unfortunately his forces melt away without much of a resistance.

If you are "Hi-tech", like US and to some extend SAF (compared to our neighbours), you will want to avoid urban combat.

You would want to play to your own strengths if possible. A pure conventional battle like Gulf War I illustrate how a hi-tech force can crush a low-tech opponent.

I don't think the SAF will buy a MBT that will be suited for urban warfare or useful in defending Spore, for the pure reason that the MBT will be be "utilized" in Singapore (not classified info please read Tom Huxley). If it happen to be suited for urban, good. But I don't think that is much of a priority.

As for the weight of MBTs being too heavy for roads in the region, this is a peacetime consideration only. In war who cares!

gary1910 SG

Just want to share some news from another forum which the article was posted by another Singaporean.

Aviation Week:-

Lockheed Martin's latest venture in transformational warfare is a 2.5-ton-class, very groundbound MULE, which it is developing with Singapore Technologies' U.S. subsidiary VT Kinetics for the U.S. Army's Future Combat System.
A full size mockup of the six-wheel, unmanned battlefield vehicle is on show here at Asian Aerospace.
MULE (it stands for Multifunction Utility/Logistics and Equipment vehicle) boasts extreme mobility in complex terrain through its highly advanced 6x6 independent articulated suspension and in-hub motors powering each wheel. It will climb at least a 1.5-meter step, cross 1.5-meter gaps, traverse side slopes greater than 40 percent, ford water to depths over 1.25 meters, and overpass obstacles as high as 0.5 meter while compensating for varying payload weights and center of gravity locations.
Three variantsTransport, Air Assault and Counterminewill be customized for their roles, which will include casualty evacuation, and rapid-fire suppression and anti-tank capabilities.
A powerplant has yet to be chosen by Boeing, the overall PCS integrator. John Morris

KiloClass SG

Looks good …. with these vehicles , we can save lives . what i’m interested in is the anti-tank capability that one of the vehicle has . anyone knows in depth about the vehicles ? what kind of anti-tank missiles they deploy ?

NathanG5 SG

sori spencer..the paragraph abt the US Ranger being maul because their High Tech weapon not right..
the fact is that most of them didnt bring along their NVG n some of their high tech stuff..

gary1910 SG

The system is still under development for the US's FCS, not much detail at the moment, but since ST is involved, I am sure that the SAF might test some of these babies when they are fully developed. Mr. Green

For more info :

http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/productdevelopment/MULE/product-mule.html

panzerjager SG

Which begs for the statement from some of my previous theads in other topics, regarding the use of radically new platform technologies for urban operations:

Again stating a plausible concept - instead of using tracked/wheels as means of locomotion in current vehicle technology, the tactical challenges posed by multiple adversaries in a urban setting should call for the direct application of 'walker technology' - use of armoured bipedal or quadripedal platforms to engage targets in high-rise environments, and also to allow immediate disgorgement of invading troopers into the tension zones to neutralise the targets and secure the objectives.

2 main assault platforms - one providing ranged fire-support from the ground level (with means for elevated engagements) and another to facilitate silent or dynamic entry into the tension zone rooms, accessed from outside of the target buildings.

All vehicles' entry into target areas under full cover of masking or illusion technologies, from the use of basic persistent smoke-generators, to visual and thermal holographic projectors/jammers

Room entry facilitated by dynamic means include the deliberate ramming of external walls from the outside by the transport walkers, followed by immediate disembarkation of troopers into the building via frontal assault hatches. Rooms could be softened up with flame or thermobaric weapons prior to entry

In any case, all resistance will be snuffed out by the implementation of such tactics

subudei SG

From what I understand, the Rangers got into trouble because their political masters didn't allow them to bring heavy firepower into the Mog. They were too lightly equipped for their mission.

Maybe that's the root of the problem - maybe what's needed to boost your chances of winning a FIBUA action is lots of armoured vehicles and heavy firepower: armoured vehicles to provide your troops with some protection and mobility, and firepower to smash a particularly stubborn enemy to pieces with sheer brute force, e.g. wrecking or even collapsing a building in which enemy forces are strongly holed up.

Of course, this isn't a foolproof solution, either. For example, it seems that modern armour technology still can't provide that much protection against oncoming fire; I was quite shocked to see those photos from Gulf War II that showed how even M1s had been disabled by the humble RPG-7.

Anyway, as for the Rangers - although the Mog was technically a defeat for them, let's not forget that the number of casualties they actually sustained was a paltry 18, compared to over 700 KIAs suffered by Mohammad Aideed's militia. They acquitted themselves rather well, all things considered.

subudei SG

Er, no, it's not a peacetime consideration only. If the roads collapse under the weight of your tanks, your vehicles' mobility will be appreciably reduced, and if the ground beneath the road has been extensively excavated for urban architecture like pipes, electrical and telephone lines, etc, you may find your tanks getting stuck in the ground!

Obviously, this will be less of a problem with respect to, say, roads in rural areas, but in urban or suburban areas, where the ground has been hollowed out quite a bit to make way for considerable underground construction, it would be a real issue.

And then of course, there's also the problem of bridging - most bridges in this part of the world, which is dominated by rural terrain, are simply not designed to bear the weight of 40-50 ton MBTs.

In Europe and the Middle East (the theatres of war in which most MBTs have been designed to operate), this is not really a problem because there is enough open terrain such that MBTs can forego the roads and just travel cross country. In SE Asia, which is mostly forested, this is clearly not an option.