Choices of MBT for Malaysia
- Thread starter Mike Powell
- Start date
Why was my post deleted? :? Misunderstanding or no, adsh made an intentional attack on the Singaporeans in this board in his reply, and that is inexcusable. He should be punished, or at the very least his post should be deleted.
Iglas are not for research any longer, they're here to stay.
As a matter of fact, we manufacture it in SG under license, and so does Malaysia.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/rsaf/lpad/weapons-ws7-pop.html
Not really much difference between the Igla and Mistral, both use passive IR... in terms of max ceiling, the Igla wins... but the Mistral carries a larger warhead
Igla Specifications
weight 11kg
warhead 1-1.2kg HE chemical energy fragmentation
length 1.7m
diameter 7.2cm
speed mach 2+
max range/max altitude 4,500 - 5,200m / 3500 m
sensors/fire controls passive IR
designer Kolomna KB
Mistral Specifications
Missile weight 18.7 kg
Missile Length 186 cm
Missile diameter 90 mm
Fin span 18 cm
Warhead 3 kg high explosive with tungsten ball projectiles
Fuses Contact fuse and laser proximity fuse
Guidance Infrared passive homing
Propulsion Solid rocket booster
Speed Mach 2.5
Range 500 m to 6 km
Altitude 3000m
This is an unconfirmed rumour, nothing else but. Next time you are passing AMQ camp you can keep an eye out. They have been spotted there.
Iglas are not for research any longer, they're here to stay.
As a matter of fact, we manufacture it in SG under license, and so does Malaysia.http://www.mindef.gov.sg/rsaf/lpad/weapons-ws7-pop.html
Not really much difference between the Igla and Mistral, both use passive IR... in terms of max ceiling, the Igla wins... but the Mistral carries a larger warhead
Igla Specifications
weight 11kg
warhead 1-1.2kg HE chemical energy fragmentation
length 1.7m
diameter 7.2cm
speed mach 2+
max range/max altitude 4,500 - 5,200m / 3500 m
sensors/fire controls passive IR
designer Kolomna KB
Mistral Specifications
Missile weight 18.7 kg
Missile Length 186 cm
Missile diameter 90 mm
Fin span 18 cm
Warhead 3 kg high explosive with tungsten ball projectiles
Fuses Contact fuse and laser proximity fuse
Guidance Infrared passive homing
Propulsion Solid rocket booster
Speed Mach 2.5
Range 500 m to 6 km
Altitude 3000m
Actually with proper upgrades and decent crews, T-72 can still be a deadly foe on the battlefield. Do not let the Iraqi T-72's performance in the first and second Gulf War fool you, those tanks Iraqi had had been downgraded by the Soviets before selling.azlan said:
I can tell you that even the T-90 and Chinese Type-99G are based on T-72.
Let it go, its over and done with. Don't forget we are guests here and remember our professionalism.limkopi said:
Ok thats a confirmation then. I got some SADA chaps who told me its confirmed. But I wonder why take the Igla? The Israelis and USA got counter for that item. Our using it probably mean something e.g. OPSFOR training, getting to know the effects and damage? mmm SADA is very close mouthed...limkopi said:.........
This is an unconfirmed rumour, nothing else but. Next time you are passing AMQ camp you can keep an eye out. They have been spotted there.
Iglas are not for research any longer, they're here to stay.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/rsaf/lpad/weapons-ws7-pop.html
............
Interesting. Any way to confirm that bit about the Sagem FCS with the PT-91? Lets find out more about this beast, then we won't be surprised when facing the business end of it (touch wood, may the time never comes). BTW, found some info and tech specs on the T-72 series at this link:limkopi said:Actually the Poles also got the so called T-72M 'monkey model' from the USSR, same as what the Iraqis got. However they have upgraded the PT-91 quite substaintially( it has the Leclerc's Sagem FCS
Info on T-72 series. Note PT-91/Twardy and Ukrainian T-72MP with SAGEM.
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/T-72.html
Note the armour thickness and also the ability to gun-launch AT-11 ATGMs.
The Sagem SAVAN 15 FCS is in use with the PT-91A, a prototype and tech demonstrator which appeared in 1997 and the PT-91M (additionally with Sagem VIGY 15 panorama sight for the commander) build for Malaysia.
You may refer to this comprehensive site: http://www.kpz4ever.de/servlets/sfs...59&b=1031186113259&ParentID=0&l=0
which is maintained by a german who serves with the tank forces of the german army himself (site is available in english). Just follow the vehicles button and check for Poland, somehow I cant give a direct link.
The link that was provided is quite comprehensive - for a "civilian" web siteturin said:
Is there special to look out for the Sagem FCS? BTW, I noted that the German panzergrenadier remark that the PT-91M is obsolete in terms of current threat assessment. From the tech specs provided, I would say its not that obsolete, especially its ability to launch ATGMs. Not being a tanker, I can't evaluate his comments and assessment. Is there any tanker - real ones, not armchair types - who can throw some light on this? Thanks in advance.
Hi every one
Link to producer of PT-91:
http://www.bumar.gliwice.pl/index.php?menu_num=menu3_&link=10&ch=1&menu_lan=en
Note: in photos section you can notice polish wersion of PT-91 (with black paint como) and Malesian (with yellow paint como). Malaysian version has some more upgraids then polish one.
Max Front turent armor is (depending on surce) 480 - 600 mm RHA ageinst KE, + ERA. New amunition can penetrate 500mm at 2km (Iraqi used old one with 280 mm at 2km).
Polish soldiers tell that: (as for all of T-72 family tanks) the biggest disadvantage is poor stabilization system, and big dispersion area (wrong projected joint between gun and turent).
Polish army has 233 PT-91 in service.
There were plans for further modyfications but our MOD decided that it is not cost efective.
Link to producer of PT-91:
http://www.bumar.gliwice.pl/index.php?menu_num=menu3_&link=10&ch=1&menu_lan=en
Note: in photos section you can notice polish wersion of PT-91 (with black paint como) and Malesian (with yellow paint como). Malaysian version has some more upgraids then polish one.
Max Front turent armor is (depending on surce) 480 - 600 mm RHA ageinst KE, + ERA. New amunition can penetrate 500mm at 2km (Iraqi used old one with 280 mm at 2km).
Polish soldiers tell that: (as for all of T-72 family tanks) the biggest disadvantage is poor stabilization system, and big dispersion area (wrong projected joint between gun and turent).
Polish army has 233 PT-91 in service.
There were plans for further modyfications but our MOD decided that it is not cost efective.
Thank you, oskarm for the information, especially about the stabilizer and the dispersion area. Any way to find out what kind of upgrades are available for your export versions? I am curious also to know if the PT-91 can launch the Russian AT-11 ATGM. The Russian T72-B can and I presume since the PT-91 is descended from the T72 series, it should be capable of that too.oskarm said:Hi every one
Link to producer of PT-91:
http://www.bumar.gliwice.pl/index.php?menu_num=menu3_&link=10&ch=1&menu_lan=en
Note: in photos section you can notice polish wersion of PT-91 (with black paint como) and Malesian (with yellow paint como). Malesian version has some more upgraids then polish one.
Max Front turent armor is (depending on surce) 480 - 600 mm RHA ageinst KE, + ERA. New amunition can penetrate 500mm at 2km (Iraqi used old one with 280 mm at 2km).
Polish soldiers tell that: (as for all of T-72 family tanks) the biggest disadvantage is poor stabilization system, and big dispersion area (wrong projected joint between gun and turent).
Polish army has 233 PT-91 in service.
There were plans for further modyfications but our MOD decided that it is not cost efective.
With a frontal armour of 600mm, plus ERA. I guess its proof against anything less than a Rheinmetall 120mm NATO APFSDS round, especially our 75mm peashooters. And that 125mm will be able to destroy anything lesser than a M1A2 or Merkava 4. Wonder if the French ERYX is any good against it.
600mm frontal is very "lean". even with ERA that will only survive with another round on top. A 105mm Leo would be able to penetrate 600mm. Most of the modern MBT's are rated at 850mm+ equiv RHA. Qualifying for a maingunner requires multiple shots on a moving 1 sqMetre target at speed. So an MBT in the frontal aspect where ERA placement is limited will not last against a qualified gunner (especially under 4km - which is the qualifying range, and which most modern "mike golfs" would be putting their crews through at least every 6 months.driftder said:
600mm RHA equiv is well within the killing capability of Eryx. If you consider that MANPAT teams operate as squads, and IIRC thats how Singapore trains her MANPAT teams, then no MBT would not want to be entering an area without a decent combined arms element.
Sorry but sources only in Polishdriftder said:
- FCS: SEGEM (Malaysian) insted of Derawa (Polish) - but eksperst clame that both have similar efficiency
- Engine: 1000HP power-pack (Malaysian) insted 850HP with separate gear-box and engine (Polish)
http://www.obrona-cywilna.pl/artykul.html?id_artykul=579
Some aditional informations:
- cost of modernization of a T-72M1 to PT-91: about 1,6 mln $
http://www.obrona-cywilna.pl/artykul.html?id_artykul=658
-cost of breand new in 2002: about 4 mln $
http://www.obrona-cywilna.pl/artykul.html?id_artykul=568
As far as I know, Australia bought used M1A1 for 10 mln $ each. And now there is a quastion what is better in joungle: 2,5 x PT-91 or a M1A1. (I know that PT-91 has no chances in duel with Chello 2 or Leo 2A6 in the desert but in limited ranges, who knows?)
Some more information about new polish amunition to 125mm gun, made of sinter of wolfram (or wolframium sinter - I have no idea witch one is corect in English. If any :smokingc:: )
initial V: 1650m/s
weight of sabot: 3,65 kg
diameter of penetrator: 25mm
penetration at 2 km over 500mm
sorce: Nowa Technika Wojskowa (New Military Technique - one of polish military magazines)
At what range?gf0012-aust said:
The nominal range is 2km when quoting penetration ranges. I was involved with an upgrade programme for the Australian Leo's in 1997 when we were looking at canadian Turrets and armour upgrades. The upgrade never eventuated, but we had access to the german penetration data for the armour upgrades and we also knew what the americans were achieving against T-72's that they were blowing up at aberdeen, and what the brits were blowing up at their own testing grounds.oskarm said:
the data as such is classified (still) but I can assure you that 600mm was not regarded as a "show stopper" at all.
re jungle warfare, australia was actually quite successful in using Centurions in Vietnam - some of those lessons are still taught in US cavalry school today. If you read the accounts of how australian armour was used in Vietnam, then you can understand why so many other people make mistakes when they refer to the ineffectiveness of MBT's in jungle warfare. The australian experience was quite the opposite - and it gets down to lateral thinking rather than scripted expectations of how armour should be used.
Still, centurions is lighter than the LEO or Abrams. The questions is which tanks can better operate in jungle environment or in more specfic term, a topical environment. we know tank can be use in the tropical environment. the jap have proved that during WW2 and so is all sides in vietnam war. M1 and LEO was considered a heavy MBT compare to T-72 series. which of this tanks can better operate in the soft ground of Malaysia? which will they prefer? an extra protection of the M1 or the high mobility of T-72s.
i think its the winner would be T-72 based platform its cheaper by the Dozen too. I think if armour thickness is in Question i'd rather stress on the ERA too. M1A2 does not utilize such Protection coat. i know it doesn't end up saving a tank on all hits but it provides a reactive protection (its all down to Probability). the Ukrainian T-80U is a fine example of the upgraded T-80u, And i would bet on anything the MBT-2000 Ukrainian/Pakistani version would some how end up being bought by the Malya's
Unless I'm misunderstanding the direction you are going in - the issue of the MBT is not sheer mass, it's directly an issue of ground pressure, torque, inclination and PW ratio. The critical denominator is the doctrine of its use - and the defining criticality then is load out.Pendekar said:
The US and Israeli field trials found that Centurions were like billy goats compared to russian tanks going up inclines. It's one of the reasons why the Israelis upgunned their Centurions for such a long time. Interestingly enough, late this year they released a Centurion based APC. part of the reasons for using the Cent hull was performance.
An MBT can have a lower absolute weight, but have a crap ground pressure rating.
In the Australian example, they used to clear the jungle with cannister - and then drive through it, up until then, the normal procedure was for tanks to try and drive through and over - which is why they usually got restricted in movement. The NVA were not afraid of tanks prior to the Aust Cavs use of cannister as defoliants prior to movement.
Like everything else in warfighting, it's not always an issue of "kit", but an issue of innovative doctrine combined with effective "kit"
Would I use an M1A2 in the jungle? you betcha, especially with double cannister and using proper support and movement by infantry. Higher targets aren't the province of MBT's, they're there for fire support and suppression. If you're trying to get a T-72 to traverse where a Stuart used to go - then you shouldn't be commanding tanks anyway.