First off,the RSA(Republic of Singapore Army),as well all
know,has the Tempests,and rumours abound that we purchased either
Leclercs or Merkavas to add to their numbers,though I personally
don't know whether that is true.
As can be seen currently,MBTs have been demonstrated to good effect
to be used in urban warfare,in FIBUA environs,as the Israelis have
shown in their control of the Palestinian territories,as the
Russians have demonstrated in Chechnya,and more recently in the
adoption of tactics and strategies similar to the Israelis,now used
by the Americans in their Iraqi occupation.They have shown their
usefulness in facilitating the presence of heavy firepower to
supplement infantry and their armour and presence is an asset in
being durable and resilient enough to draw fire away from more
vulnerable elements.
In the defence of Singapore with its FIBUA environment,roads are
heavy enough to support 70 ton MBTs,from somwhat limited
knowledge(if anybody knows better,please comment).
A list of MBTs that we could possibly use are as listed with their
various pros and cons.These are taken courtesy of WAFF.
the statement:
Most people would say it's the American
M-1 Abrams. Their reasoning would be simple; the M-1 has actually
fought in two wars since 1991 and handily defeated whatever was
sent against it. Tank buffs, however, tend to look more closely at
details casual observers ignore. The buffs tend to consider the
German Leopard 2A6 as superior to the latest model M-1A2. The
Leopard 2A6 has a longer 120mm gun barrel, giving it's shells
greater penetration. The Leopard also has reactive armor for the
top of the tank, where the latest top-attack missiles seek to
penetrate the thinner armor there. The Leopard also has a number of
other novel touches, like a video cam facing to the rear of the
tank, and hooked up to a screen in the drivers compartment. This
allows to driver to go into reverse more quickly and confidently.
Backing up quickly is a frequently used combat maneuver. The
Leopard also has a diesel engine, rather than the fuel guzzling gas
turbine (jet engine) of the M-1. Thus the M-1 has a little more
zip, but the Leopard gets much better gas mileage.
But a tank does not stand by itself. It is part of a combat force,
and the most important component is the crew. In this department,
the M-1 has several advantages. Most importantly, American tank
crews have had a lot of combat experience since World War II,
German crews have had none. While German training is good, they are
still using conscript crews, while U.S. tankers are all volunteers
and in service longer. American combat doctrine has also developed
more rapidly than Germany's and currently makes heavy use of the
battlefield Internet and superior situational awareness. All of
this makes an enormous difference. A tank is not the sum of all
it's parts, it's only as good as the system it operates within.
Here the M-1 has a big edge. Moreover, the Americans get an
additional slight edge because of their willingness to use depleted
uranium in their composite armor, and tank shells. Then again, if
the U.S. and German switched tanks, the Leopards with American
crews would be superior.
The other tanks in the "top ten" are remarkably similar. Most have
composite armor, and often reactive armor as well. All have guns
similar to the M-1 and Leopard's 120mm smoothbore. The British
Challenger 2 is usually ranked third. But, again, because the
British armor units have had combat experience since World War II
and use volunteers, they have an edge. Because the Americans have
more proven combat technology, the M-1 would still be first, but
the Challenger 2 would be second and the German Leopard
third.
Things really get interesting when you try to fill the fourth place
slot. There are a lot of high tech tanks out there. The French have
the LeClerc, the Japanese have the T-90, the South Koreans have the
Type 88/120 and Israel has the Merkava 4. Again, the edge should go
to the tank that has the best crews and the most combat experience.
That would be the Merkava 4. While lacking a lot of the gadgets of
the other tanks mentioned above, the Merkava has an edge because of
combat experience and crews with years of working together.
Although most Israeli tank crews are reservists, many of the troops
have combat experience and the crews often stick together for
decades. This makes for very effective crews and tank units.
Fifth place belongs to the South Korean Type 88/120. This tank was
developed by the same people who created the M-1. Some call it the
"Baby M-1", as it is a bit lighter than the M-1 (51 tons versus
nearly 70 tons), but otherwise uses the same design principles.
Most important is the fact that the South Korean crews know that
they have a deadly foe just to the north. This provides a little
pucker factor to the training, which is run using a lot of American
techniques.
Sixth place is tricky and is a toss up between the French LeClerc
and the Japanese Type 90. The edge goes to the Japanese tank. Both
vehicles weigh about the same and use similar weapons. But the
Japanese have better electronics and crews that have been together
longer. Plus, all things considered, I be a little more fearful of
a bunch of Japanese crews in their Type 90s than French crews in
their LeClercs.
Seventh place, by default, goes to the LeClerc.
Eighth place would be the Russian T-80UM2. This tank uses a lot of
new protective technology (to detect and defeat anti-tank
missiles), several armor systems and lots of electronics.
Unfortunately, the workmanship is slipshod and the crews mostly
conscripts and poorly led.
Ninth place goes to the new Chinese Type 98. This is another of
those "improved T-72s." Lots of improvements, though, many of them
similar to what's found in the Russian T-80UM2. The workmanship on
these vehicles is a little better than on the T-80UM2, but the
Chinese don't have as much experience building tanks. This has
shown itself in the numerous technical glitches that have shown up.
The Chinese are moving to volunteer crews and more intensive
training.
Tenth place goes to the Russian T-90, which is actually an upgraded
T-72. Not as effective an upgrade as the T-80UM2 or the Chinese
Type 98.
Most of the remaining tanks in the world are Russian T-72s and
T-55s, and US M-60s and M-48s. China builds clones of these Russian
tanks, and other countries build variations on the T-72 and older
British tanks. The M-60s, with the latest upgrades (thermal sights
and computerized fire control systems) and well trained crews could
be contenders for the 8-10 positions. But all those T-72s and T-55s
serve largely as targets. However, as experience in the
Arab-Israeli wars and World War II amply demonstrated, technically
"inferior" tanks with superior crews will rule the
battlefield.
As the article
As the above basically says,you can have a shitty tank but with a
well-trained and experienced crew,you can mostly nullify any
advantage the other tank has.
However,I want to bring attention to the Type 88/120 MBT developed
and used by South Korea aka the "Baby M-1" which is based on the
M-1 design and weighs in at 51 tons.It is clearly much lighter than
equivalent tanks in its class and if upgraded with the requisite
tech and provided with the trained personnel,it should be able to
fulfill our needs,providing a relatively lighter armoured presence
serving in the role of the MBT that is more mobile than equivalent
MBTs.
