Amoured Ops in Jungle, plantation terrain

Lonewolf

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Hi I'm new to this forum, I would just like to discuss the feasebility of amoured warfare in jungle or plantation terrain. Namely in Malaysian Peninsula espiacially with Malaysia being the only southeast asian country with a modern MBT (PT-91 polish upgrade of the T72 ) and how that will affect operations in said terrain.

As a former amoured infantry Spore (now reservist). operating from M113's supported by uprgraded amx13 ( SM1 ). We were told that MBT have no place in a Jungle enviroment being too big, basicly its mobility in a jungle enviroment sucks, very heavy ( not all bridges can take the weight), guzzles too much fuel and ammo . During the Vietnam war the US used the M60's, which were reduced to mobile pillboxes.

Hence Spore's development of light tanks and IFV,s.
1 on 1 the PT-91 will eat any Spore amoured vehicle for snacks, but in Jungle or Plantation enviroment : accurate and prompt arty and Infantry rules.

BUT a normal SAF Infantry section (anti armour limited to Armbrust) cannot take out a MAF PT91 from the front ( unless unsurpported and we can flank the sob) it will have to wait for the milans, sm1's or airforce to take it out. Our IFV's are armed with 20mm, 40mm and 0.5mm obvously for soft targets. Even the SM1's ( if I am not wrong is only 75mm I beleive there are upgrades to 105mm ) will have difficulties with the front armour of the PT-91.

So did malaysia make the right move in investing in a MBT or Spore which invested in only light tank and IFV, mobile arty, apache's and increased anti armour capability for support units ( milan2, MATODOR ) .

I personaly think that airpower is way over rated in an jungle enviroment. very useful yes but not war winning.

Ps : by the way Spore centurions ( first produced in 1945 ) have been disbanded loong time ago, way too old for modern combat anybody with a LAW can take it out.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
G'day mate, nice to see you around the forums a bit.

Just differing a bit. The US used M48 MBt's during Vietnam, the M-60 MBT's weren't in-service then. Australia used Centurion MBT's in Vietnam however VERY successfully. The Centurion's were even heavier than the M48's though weighing in at over 50 tons...

Jungle and plantation was the predominant geographical features of the Aussie's A/O in Vietnam. Heavy armour didn't have too many mobility problems then. True they were used as mobile fire support, rather than traditional tank on tank action, but then Australia never faced NVA armour.

They would have been used in that role, had the situation required, given that we couldn't deploy our Carl Gustav 84mm anti-armour weapons, due to Sweden not "allowing" us too...
 

Lonewolf

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Aussie Digger said:
G'day mate, nice to see you around the forums a bit.

Just differing a bit. The US used M48 MBt's during Vietnam, the M-60 MBT's weren't in-service then. Australia used Centurion MBT's in Vietnam however VERY successfully. The Centurion's were even heavier than the M48's though weighing in at over 50 tons...

Jungle and plantation was the predominant geographical features of the Aussie's A/O in Vietnam. Heavy armour didn't have too many mobility problems then. True they were used as mobile fire support, rather than traditional tank on tank action, but then Australia never faced NVA armour.

They would have been used in that role, had the situation required, given that we couldn't deploy our Carl Gustav 84mm anti-armour weapons, due to Sweden not "allowing" us too...
yup your correct about the m48 and m60's I was mistaken ( they do look similar )
I believed the Koreans also used the MBT's successfuly in the V.W, even in a fire support role. but thats my point I believe that the Spore Gov is wrong. there is a role for the MBT in closed terrain warfare, not a major role but an important one nevertheless espiacially in the attack role. history has already proven it, germans in ardennes, japs in malaysia ( altough they were considered more a light tank not a medium like the panther, sherman or T34),
and the US,Aussies korean in Vietnam.

PS: u mean the swede's did not aloow u to deploy the Carl G in vietnam ???
why for christ sake.
 

knightrider4

Active Member
Same reason we couldn't deploy Mirages to Vietnam the French threatened I believe to withdraw support (parts) for the aircraft.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
knightrider4 said:
Same reason we couldn't deploy Mirages to Vietnam the French threatened I believe to withdraw support (parts) for the aircraft.
Yep, though it was a refusal to supply munitions for the system if we did deploy it. We didn't manufacture our own munitions for it then...
 
Top