What would u like to see on a new SAF light tank?

last SG · 2003-05-20T00:11:55+00:00

Its not an obsession its reality. If an headlong advance is mounted on a single or twin axis for a capital(in your case a capital a few hundred kilometres aw...

On the way SG

Well, this is my first reply in this forum. I can see every one here has smoked too much ganja, either that or they have never been appointment holders in an armoured unit. This is not war gamming here. This long wish list of items that you want on the next gen. light tank is impossible to squeeze into that size AFV. Not even half of it can go in. Its time for the SAF to get a real MBT. Something in the 50 ton class. Stop wasting time with all these Bionix light tank crap. It just gets tankees killed for no good reason.

roll: inquote]Originally posted by zigzag:
Good Day to all,
My very first post! I am new here, so i am not sure if this topic has been posted before. Was reading one of the threads where u guys were talking about our old AMX13s. There are stories floating around that the SAF wants new light tanks, as u all know. Thought it might be fun if u guys have any ideas about what gizmos u want this 'rumoured' light tank to have? Time to get creative.... [/quote]

On the way SG

The Merk has had 60mm mortar for all 4 models. If you go with a 3 man crew,there will be no point in having this. Its interesting your expression "load out". In the SAF, we call it belly load. Which army are you from? The belly load will be dependent on the calibre of the gun. If you put a 105mm L7 in a Bionix chassis, expect to get 35 to 40 rounds main rounds in a belly load. This will be reduced to 20-30 if you use a 120mm gun, as I believe in that calibre, separate charge have to be used. Or maybe semi combustible rounds, but no tankee would like to see the belly load reduced so much for a gun that is overkill in SE Asia.

Its interesting that the Merkava actually has a 60mm mortar in the turret... but i'm not advocating something like that on our tank. I dont think there's the space... Just for interest, what do you think the load out (no. of stowed rounds) should be for our tank?

[/b][/quote]

bcoy SG

Originally posted by On the way:
[b]Well, this is my first reply in this forum. I can see every one here has smoked too much ganja, either that or they have never been appointment holders in an armoured unit. .................

Well welcome - not up to TankNet forums isn't it?

Joe Black SG

No, I disagree that it is impossible to fit these into a light tank. The M8 AGS is a prime example of what miniture technology has achieved over the years. In fact, what we have discussed so far (in terms of our wish list of things to have in the new light tank) is already available in the M8 AGS. You can also almost find most of these features in some of the AFV cum light tanks from the Spanish ASCORDs to the British Warrior light tank. Not to mention, the Swedish CV90-120T incorporated the almost exact specs (except for the lack of an autoloader) that we have wished for in the new light tank.

We have discussed, in numerous threads that MBTs are not suitable as a direct replace for the SM1s. We never dismissed MBT roles in SAF ORBAT. They should only replace the Centurions (Tempest or whatever name it was given). We also mentioned the need for the 32Div formation to be a truely heavy armour/mechanised Division.

YourFather SG

[/b][/quote]

Laughing Embarassed "Which army are you from?" Come on, go easy on me Smile I from the 'world class stupidity....errr army' known as the SAF... but in log unit (MMC), so dunno too much about armour side... Please do continue to correct my ignorance, thanks Smile

zigzag SG

Dammit! how u know?? Shocked

But seriously, yes, i do agree that many (if not all) of us have never served in the armour side, which is exactly why we need people like YOU to help us by providing input!!

[quote]Originally posted by On the way:
I can see every one here has smoked too much ganja,

On the way SG

Hi Bcoy,
"Well welcome - not up to TankNet forums isn't it?[/b][/quote]"
Sigh, I am afraid so, maybe I can invite SimonTan and Rstiawan over from Tanknet forums. Spark things up a bit. Anyway, not too much interesting over there now. Did you read the thread on "MBT Sales" quite interesting. SAF is mentioned.

bcoy SG

"
Sigh, I am afraid so, maybe I can invite SimonTan and Rstiawan over from Tanknet forums. Spark things up a bit. Anyway, not too much interesting over there now. Did you read the thread on "MBT Sales" quite interesting. SAF is mentioned. [/b][/quote]

Yes, I read the posts and I post there under the nick "bravocube" too.I have to admit Simon Tan is among the best and very well read - better than all the other Malaysian posters put together.
Still, we can contribute positively here and improve certain things.
I do enjoy tanknet forum - views are generally matured, constructive and the posters come from different parts of the world - most with some form of (conscript or regular) military experience as well.

Anyway - I believe that there are needs for both light and heavy tanks in this region. Did you find out about the MEXAS armour plating?

On the way SG

Hi Joe Black,
I have to difer from your opinion on this. By the way, you forgot to add Cadillag Stngray II to the list.
M8 AGS- U have to buy it with the heaviest level 3 modular armour package, and even than it will barely stop a single warhead handheld RPG. This is due to its original layer of armour which is only an alumninum alloy. An ATGW will waste this light weight. Compare what a modern heavy MBT can offer. At least 300mm RHA at the most vulnerable points plus ERA to defeat even tandem warhead ATGW. Not to mention if you go with a western heavy MBT, u can get chobham armour, or maybe even a DU layer on top pf that, plus ERA if u wish too. Also, even a M1 early model was shown to have withstand a T-72 APFDSD round with no interior penetration. As the Malaysian PT-91 uses the same 125mm gun, can you convincingly claim that a M8 with the level 3 armour will also be able to withstand a 125mm APFSDS round? I think not. I like the auto loader on the M8, but I hate the 30 main round capacity. Most MBTs can carry at least 50 or more for 105mm ammo. In combat, 30 main rounds may not last you thru 3 engagements.
ASCOD- sames weaknesses as the M8 except worse. No turret stabilization, only 40 rounds of main ammo, and base model does not come with any ability to withstand any more than small arms and shell splinters. Need serious armour upgrade
CV90- again lack of ability to take punishment, and 40 round capacity. Plus i have to question the price of all these light tank purchases. As you know, there are no available used light tanks such as the above on the world market. Hence, the SAF will have to buy new. I would venture to say that a new CV90 or M8 will probably cost more than a used Leo 1, M1, and most certainly a T-72. There is a fire sale on M60s somewhere in the world, and the IDF will still sell you really nice Magach 7s or SABRAS for a good price.

<<

I think 4 SAB is being assigned to 32 Div. Although I would not dispute the need for a SM1 type of tank, the mix is all wrong in the SAF. u have 350 AMX-13s and about 80 Tempest. It should be the other way around.

On the way SG

Hi Bcoy,
Yes, I did find out about the Mexas armour plating. Frankly, I think his calculations a little bit sala. I look at the graph, but I don't see it. What he is saying is that a 20mm think Mexas layer has the same resistance as 250mm RHA!! Wah lau, in that case, you can use the Bionix IFV as a heavy APC! This Mexas is not miracle armour. If it is, than every tankmaker in the world will add 60mm of Mexas armour on top of 10 mm of aluminum armour and have a RHA of 750mm, enough to defeat the strongest 120mm DU rounds. Well, he lives in Vancouver. BC I believe. Maybe I meet him for coffee the next time I am there. He is angmoh and lives in canada, so I don't think he will be a ISD spy. U are right, I enjoy the fact there are Israeli tankees, US and British tankees and even Russian tankess on that tanknet forum. Everyone is professional.

On the way SG

A 120mm gun is an overkill in SE Asia. Your heaviest armor opposition is Leo 1s in Thai army, plus Pt-91 in Mat army. APFSDS 105mm should be enough to penetrate both these MBTs even over the frontal arc. To be on the safe side, SAS can order APFSDS DU rounds. For sure will kill them. Also, the 105mm will permit at least the carriage of 50 main tank rounds versus low 30s for 120mm. For live firing training, it will be cheaper.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Nonsense, it never hurts to get an increase in preformance, esp when the increase will help save your butt. 120mm can penetrate and kill the Malaysians further off then a 105mm can, where a glancing, or break up shot in a 105 will be fatal with a 120mm.

Somemore if the Malaysians decide to include modular armor packages, your 105's preformance will be limited even more. Entry level for anti tank cannon caliber nowadays, is talked about in terms of 120mm liao. It will not hurt to have a 120mm cannon around, esp when MBTs are getting tougher nowadays.

|-|05| SG

Offtopic question.....anyone here knows the formular to get caliber? i forgot liao....i know it has something to do with barrel length and bullet diameter....

bcoy SG

There are no Leo 1s in the Thai army.

dkhoo SG

On The Way, the problem is that the heavy tanks you want are not going to be very mobile or easy to support. Not many bridges and roads in the region can support their weight, meaning that the combat engineers will have their hands full just keeping them moving. They also need a lot of logistical support. We have enough to support hundreds of light tanks, but not hundreds of MBTs. Unless we really beef up the logistics, the MBTs will have no fuel and no ammo.

About MEXAS armor: Armor has different resistances toward different weapons. Not just kinetic (AP, APFSDS) vs. chemical (HEAT, HESH), but each individual weapon. It is possible for a piece of armor to have 250mm RHA against tungsten sabot penetrators, but only 20mm RHA against carbide-tipped sabot penetrators of the same calibre. MEXAS is a ceramic armor, which works by being so hard that the penetrator shatters like glass when it hits. But that only works if the ceramic is hard enough. If the penetrator is harder than the ceramic, the armor shatters and offers very little protection. So read claims about armor protection with many grains of salt.

dkhoo SG

On The Way, while I understand your desire as a tanker to have a more heavily armored vehicle, you must also understand that the SAF does not have the near unlimited financial, manpower and logistical resources of the US Army. If it came down to a choice, we could have hundreds of light tanks or dozens of MBTs. While you would of course prefer to be sitting in a safer and more powerful MBT, it is better for the Army as a whole if you accept a lower level of armor protection so that there can be more tanks. I feel that the current force structure of 350 light tanks and

How much is enough armor? While your opinion as a tanker is very valuable, hear this ignorant infantryman. Our potential adversaries have few tanks (even after Malaysia gets its MBTs), so protection against tank main gun rounds is less important, especially since it is very expensive weight-wise. We can also forget about ATGM protection, since even massive M1A2s are penetrated by modern ATGMs (ground or air-launched). I believe that the main threats will come from anti-tank weapons carried by infantry and light armored vehicles.

As such, we should aim for at least frontal protection against 84mm HEAT (400mm RHA) and 90mm APDS (170mm RHA), with all round protection against RPG-9 (300mm RHA) and 35mm APDS (100mm RHA). Top armor must be proof against 155mm airburst. The next step up would be to 106mm HEAT frontal protection and 84mm HEAT all-round protection, using add-on ERA. This would make the tanks tough to crack for anything except tank main gun rounds and ground or air-launched ATGMs, which is already better than plain vanilla Centurion Mk 2. I think this can be achieved with spaced armor and ERAto boost the chemical energy protection of a Bionix, along with some applique HHS or ceramic armor. A more powerful engine to carry the extra weight of the armor and turret, and it should be OK.

All my opinion of course.

On the way SG

Dear T-rex,
U are not looking at the total picture. U are looking at just the performance of 120mm vs 105mm. Of course, the 120mm is a better gun. no doubt. I examine other factors such as:
a) Engagement distances- Given our type of terrain, with no open desert, what is the typical engagement distance in a tank vs tank here in SE Asia. Certainly not 4000m or more. More likely to be 1000m to 2500m max. The 120mm is clearly superior in performance to the 105mm at ranges of 3500m and above. At shorter range, there is no distinct advantage. At 1500m, all the modular armour in the world will not save u from a 105mm DU round.
b) Belly load - 120mm ammo is larger, and soem come with separate charge, etc. In a MBT, you typicaly give up 30% more carrying capacity if you go with a 120mm. In a 105mm M1 for example, you can carry 55 rounds. When you go to 120mm M1A2, the belly load drops to 40 only. Can u be so confident in the fog of war and knowing the standard of our MT drivers that your ammo train will find you in time to replenish you? The xtra 15 rounds could mean success or failure. Its at least 2 engagements more. In addition, SAF philosophy is that tank will take a support role for infantry. Trust me, the infantry will appreciate the extra rounds.
c) Who is your enemy? - The Malaysian armour is mainly Sibmas, Scorpion, Condors, KIFVs, etc. 105mm HE is more than enough to kill them. PT-91 comprise only a small percentage. U want the whole SAF tank fleet to go to 120mm just for this?
d) Advances in 105mm ammo- Although the L7 is a the end of its life cycle, the ammo makers are constantly comming up with improved 105mm rounds. The IMI 105mm DU round is supposed to be one bad mother, with penetrator rod going thru T-72 at 5000m.
I can go on, but these are just the main points.

On the way SG

I may be wrong here, but i will attempt to answer your question. Take the most common western tank gun, the British 105mm L7 52.
105mm is the diametre of the inside of the gun barrel measurement taken at the end of the barrel.
L7 is the model or mark of the gun
52 is the calibre of the gun measured by taking the length of the entire barrel divided by the diameter of the barrel. Hope that helps

On the way SG

sorry, M60A3

|-|05| SG

Ahhh yes that is the way...thx for reminding me Smile

« Previous Page Next Page »