AMX-13

last SG · 2005-04-02T01:40:30+00:00

I'd sure like to it do that at everton park, sengkang east, and bukit panjang area near pending station.

tvdog SG

I'm sorry, but I wasn't talking to you. You mean I can't have conversations here that doesn't include you?

tvdog SG

If we were to make a comparison, the Stingray is by far a much more superior tank than the AMX-13.

It has a bigger gun, better armour and I'm sure better engines etc.

I could be wrong but I think the Stingray was also offered to Singapore or we at one time considered it?

Tango1 SG

wow..interesting debate going on here..Lemme put my two cents in.. Mr. Green

The SAF's armour doctrine is different in a sense from out neighbours up north for that matter. Ours is one of mobility warfare a la' "Blitzkreig" style of warfare. In that sense, we have a need for light tanks in our ORBAT to fulfil that requirement. If everyone has realized, the SAF has requirements regarding the width and size of its armoured vehicles, so that it can cross plantations easily, be it rubber or palm.. Wink To quote Derek da Cunha's argument, M'sia's overall strategy is one of a sledgehammer; slow but with a massive strike, it will obliterate. The SAF is like a rapier; light and fast..but lethal after awhile...

Yes, our neighbour up north and even Thailand have MBTs in their inventory...but what is their defence strategy like as compared to ours? Are they as mobile as we are overall? Where are they deployed? How are the MBTs employed?

The SAF is able to field MBTs; that's not a problem, considering our resources, both financial, manpower and logistical. We are capable of absorbing and deploying these platforms. Question is, should we follow the path of others in employing MBTs? We have to also remember that our armour have to cross the straits; not just rivers and streams. That means that weight considerations have to be extended towards loading MBTs on our LSTs, as well as the smaller landing craft. It will then become a balance of how many tanks we should load, as opposed to AFVs, etc etc...

Tvdog, regarding the Stingray tank...there is some controversy regarding the vehicle...Thailand is the only country that bought it. Apparently, there were hull cracks discovered on many of the tanks, which sparked off an exchange between the manufacturer and the RTA. You can find that in: J.N. Mak, "Armed But Ready?ASEAN Conventional Warfare Capabilities," Harvard International Review, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Spring 1994), pp. 20-24. Hope this helps... Very Happy

spencer99 SG

Apparently, the Thai tank crews are so impressed with the power to weight ratio of the Stingray that they use the light tank for a "jumping" competition. They acclerate the tank up a ramp and then "leap" some distance before landing.... so you can imagine the stress it gives to the vehicle!

Yes the Stingray is a much moer "modern" tank compared to the AMX-13. The reason why we consider but didn't adopt the stingray shouldn't put it down.

Afterall we already have 350 AMX13, we can't replace them in one shot.

As for the SAF's strategy of "agility" when the AMX-13 was envisioned, it does have a certain level of agility compared to its comtemporary "heavy tanks".

The SM1 upgrades gives it new suspension and engines and does continue to provide some level of agility.

But I think with the improvements in guided Anti Tank missles and light weight LAWs, it would be prudent to switched to a moreprotected vehicles.

tvdog SG

I do not know of the SAF's doctrine of so-called "blitzkreig". If it is true I have no problem with that. This strategy is still very sound.

I do know that tanks are used to spearhead the thrusts of most conventional land warfare.

Yes, the AMX-13 are fast - but are they so fast you can't hit them with .5 HMG with armour piercing shells or other anti-tank weapons like RPG and ATGMs?

Though we talked about a lot of things everyone's argument was that because of terrain, bridge size, etc we need light tanks.

While I do not agree with this statement, I wasn't dissing light tanks. I WAS SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT AMX-13.

What I am saying, is that the AMX-13 and its crew has zero survivability in a real battlefield.

seancannot SG

Thot came out in newspaper Mindef alr looking for AMX replacement… Think for the current application b4 Msia MBT come into service, our AMX is good enough and save the tax payer a lot of $$$

zenden9 SG

This is the best SAF can get to replace its AMX-13 if it wanted to continue to have a light -weight tank! Plus it can swim across Johor Strait relatively with ease.

The Type 63A is China's second generation amphibious
tank to replace the ageing Type 63 in current service. The
prototype of the Type 63A received a series of tests and trials
before it was finally approved by the PLA in early 1997.

The Type 99 differs from its predecessor by the
addition of a new turret with a reduced-velocity 105 mm gun and
redesigned hull. The new gun could fire both conventional AP/HE
rounds and laser-guided anti-tank missiles, giving the tank the
punch to take out most light tanks in the world, and making a
serious challenge to the modern main battle tanks (MBTs).

The lengthened hull offered increased flotation for
the heavier turret and improved swimming characteristics. A 580 hp
powerpack gives the tank a maximum swimming speed of 28 km/h. Other
improvements include computerised fire control systems with dual-way
stablisations and latest thermal image night visions.

The Type 63A has a similar layout as the Type 63,
featuring a larger boat-like hull and a welded turret surrounded by
storage racks for extra protections. The 105 mm rifled gun was
derived from the gun on the Type 88 MBT, with special designs to
reduce the recoil and overall weight.
The Type 63A's main armament
includes a 105 mm rifled gun, which can fire armour piercing fin
stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS), high explosive (HE), and
high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) ammunitions, as well as laser guided
anti-tank missiles. The test showed that when firing APFSDS, the gun
could penetrate 560 mm steel armour at a distance of 2,000 m.

Secondary weapons include a coaxial 7.62 mm machine
gun and a 12.7 mm air-defence machine gun.

The Type 63A also features a new computerised light
spot fire control system with roof-mounted stabilised sights fitted
with day/thermal channels and a laser rangefinder.

The Type 99 has a better armour
protection than the Type 63. Welded turret and hull can be easily
fitted with composite and explosive reactive armour plates. Two sets
of four-barrel smoke/HE grenade launchers are mounted on the turret
sides

The Type 63A is powered by an improved 580 hp diesel

SPECIFICATIONS
Crew: 4
Weight: 22 tons
Engine:580 hp turbocharged diesel
Transmission:Mechanical, planetary Track Metallic
Suspension: Torsion bar
Radio:receive/transmit radio; internal telephone
Dimension: Length: 9.6 m; Height: 3.0 m; Width: 3.2 m
Cruising Range: N/A
Speed: Max swim 28 km/h
Main Gun: 105 mm rifled gun (45 rounds)Gun Elevation/Depression:Gun
Stablisation: 2-Axis Auxiliary Weapon :One coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun;one 12.7 mm air-defence machine gun

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type63a.asp

seancannot SG

Mindef should serious consider !!! Made in China should be cheap rite ??? Then we can made a bit of improvement here and there and then we got our selves a cheapo Ultimate Tank Haha

idwar SG

My turn now to put in my dua (2) sen....

My impression is that everyone here is contemplating a direct rush through the main highways.......well, unless you catch the defenders by TOTAL surprise, the possibility is that ALL tanks, light or MBT will burn.......

I believe the weak point in Malaysia are the rivers- one can actually use the rivers to cut off the main forces......( for example: one can use a river at Batu Pahat to navigate to Yong Peng as well as up north to Parit Sulong, cutting off Yong Peng from Muar. Or conversely launch an attack from Parit Sulong towards Batu Pahat and Yong Peng)

Imagine the role of amphibious tanks..........but it works both ways, for the enemy will find it hard to hold on to their gains when a counter attack can come by way of rivers.

Just my 0.02 Ringits worth.....

CenturionMBT SG

lol, ringgits indeed. Well yeah what you say does makes sense too. In fact what i believe is that tanks in the context of modern warfare, are pretty much sitting ducks. You have a wide array of weapons that could destroy it . Thats why for many of us, whether it is extra armoured or not, with such a wide array of weapons, it doesn't really make much of a difference. On the other hand, tanks are something that you cannot do away with. Without tanks to support your infantry or spearhead an advance your tanks are good as dead.

so as idwar have said, tanks are most effective when they have the element of surprise. And to do that you require speed and agility. So in other words, a tank is the modern day calvary. To charge, where the enemy least expect create a spearhead within the enemy lines, and let the infantry follow through.

SMAPLionHeart SG

Who cares about AMX-13's armour?

We will be unlikely to see battle anytime soon.

tankee1981 SG

Wow! You guys have a very intensive debate in just one night! Unfortunately, I can't join in. Now to clarify CenturionMBT's doubts. Yes,you are right the armour on the normal SM1 is quite weak,the tank can easily be scrapped by 0.5HMG from our own Ultra M113 or BX.

You are also right when you said that additional armour can be bolted on,but this is only during war time. I have heard that we have a stand-by force of 'brand new' tanks with the additional armour in storage. Never been used much,they are only activated prior to war. I supposed thats where the bulk of the 350 tanks are,but i can't confirm this though. Could be just rumour but sounds realistic to me.

Yes,the SM1 cannot fire on the move. We can only shoot and scoot. We can't directly charged at the enemy who have MBT.This is due to the lack of stabilised turret,small calibre ammo and limited armour.We are taught that if we can't kill a MBT with 2 FS rounds then its time to scoot.

The SM1's role is to act as a fire support platform to the Ultras and BX. We will cover them while they proceed or charge up the objective. We also lead the way in the ABG(Armour Battle Group). As for the reason i am not very sure but i think it is due to the fact that we have the biggest gun and the least no. of crew. So we are more likely to kill the enemy before they can kill us and should we get hit, the max casualties we have is only 3. A relatively unknown function of the SM1 is to provide air cover especially against helicopters(planes are too fast). This is possible due to the odd looking turret which enables it to elevated to a high angle.It is also this turret which help us to shoot behind cover for shoot and scoot due to the low depression angle.Hope that my info is of help. Very Happy

LazerLordz SG

Seems to me that our armored forces are mostly of a tank destroyer role than a armored advance.We can kill tanks with our IFVs and APCs.But not with our SM1.Sounds odd right..I'd bet there is a reason.And that reason is found in our policy of "blitzkrieg", backed up by our Longbows.We do not mass and advance, we would probably move in medium sized tank destroyer teams and scatter about in groups.

gary1910 SG

x2

The AMX served us well for more than 3 decades.

Only in mid 80s , MAF went on a buying spree with three type of AFVs, the Sibmas, Condor and a small number of Scorpion and Stormer. Before that they were totally incapable of stopping our armoured forces.

Abt the armour protectionof our SM1, I read few months back in Tanknet forum, one who claimed to be working in a defence company has the privileged to witness the first prototype in action, he said that the local SG engineer told him that the SM1 was uparmoured at the front including the turret,in fact he claimed that turret was uparmoured to withstand up to a mid calibre cannon.

The turret was cleverly designed in such a way that it look the same as original , as if no uparmoured was performed.

Wel , take it with pinch of salt.

spencer99 SG

Agree that in its day the AMX-13 is the best choice. we got them cheap and at a time of primitive ATGMs and whereby there is no armoured opponents in SEA. the AMX-13 is a significant value add.

As for using Longbows to support, we have 3x CAD and 1x RDF Div. that is a lot of Divisions for 1 SQN of LongBow tosupport!

zenden9 SG

I heard the RMAF obtain some MANPAD from China. How will it threaten our Apache?

spencer99 SG

Experiences in Somalia and Iraq seems to indicate the helicopters are vulnerable to determined resistance.

LazerLordz SG

Either we get more LongBows or thay are not an organic divisional asset, but a mobile force to be called on to soften the enemy in a first strike.

CenturionMBT SG

anti aircraft using the sm1? i think i rather have a manpad . . . .

hmm so if that is what you say, we can have things like reactive armour or bolt on applique armour on it.

Looks kinda odd though.

tvdog SG

Our AMX13 top road speed is 60km/h and 40km/h cross country.

For comparison's sake a big and well-armoured MBT like the Abrams, moves at around 70km/h on the road and 48km/h cross country. So speed is not exclusive to small-sized tanks.

And what's more, a modern MBT can shoot at you while moving. That's agiilty.

Maybe the AMX13 can perform somersaults around the M1 or tap dance in the rubber plantations, but its armament can't definitely stop an enemy MBT, and its armour can't even protect itself from .5 HMG bullets.

And the armour protection on most modern MBTs, though not perfect, is better than what you would find on any light tanks, modern or otherwise.

In the old days a small tank can hide in the tree line and ambush approaching enemy forces. But these days enemy MBTs all have some kind of thermal imaging device and can find you even at night. So armour protection is the only way to go. Being small and hiding is passe.

So if the AMX13 goes into battle, they stand a good chance of becoming tin coffins. They are definitely not meant for this era.

If light tanks are the way to go, well then get something well-armed and armoured. But I say this is not so ideal as a small size usually restricts you in terms of armament and armour protection.

« Previous Page Next Page »