Malaysian Army/Land forces discussions

[Chino]

Malaya may be a tropical jungle terrain etc.

But during WW2 Malaya invasion the Japs weren't interested in the jungles. In fact, Allied troops who escaped into the jungle were bypassed and mostly ignored by the Japs in their lightning advance towards Singapore.

Most Allied stragglers in the jungle soon threw away their weapons, Indian and local troops changed into civi clothes to blend in. Others who got lost became starved, diseased, weakened and posed little threat to the Japs.

The Japs were more interested in capturing:

- roads (so can can advance rapidly)
- bridges (same)
- airfields (so the air threat can be reduced and they can then use for their own resupply, air cover assets etc)
- ports (resupply and naval facilities to aid amphibious flanking actions)
- and cities and towns

In all these scenarios, heavily armoured MBT-led mailed fist will be very useful indeed. So jungle-bashing type action will be a sideshow.

This provides a good indication as to what MAF should prepare for in a conventional action against a foreign invader.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

What about East Malaysia, where the land border with Indonesia is impossibly long?

................Well, it's all fair since whatever limits MAF will also apply to the enemy's MBT deployment. But you would have the home advantage of terrain intel etc

The land border with the Kalimantan provinces is not long. It is inaccessible for any force the size of brigade to operate in. Borneo remains a theatre apart and any conflict there is bound to be painfully long. Otherwise MBTs on Sarawak and Sabah would be limited to coastal highways; towns; and bridges and ports.

Sarawak, Sabah, Kalimantan Barat, Kalimantan Tengah and Kalimantan Timur is as you are aware very different regions marked by coastal alluvial plains; hilly country rising to steep mountain ranges jutting out in the centre of the Island.

For Rapid Reaction; experience suggests that Hueys and Cobras for this type of terrain is ideal. Not MBTs.

 

[cm07]

The Pt-91s are based in W Malaysia anyway. I dont see the point of hypothetical MBTs operations in E Malaysia.

Iggy is right to an extent - E Malaysia's terrain bogs everything down. Improving the mobility of infantry in that area would be an advantage. However, that advantage would be removed once they are back on the ground. It would be a slow conflict as mentioned. It would be like 'Nam all over.

W Malaysia will be a totally different picture. a Patton/T-34 would not make it alive out of a face-to face fight with a modern MBT but give the gun a good range finder, new gen TI optics, new age 90mm ammo,up powered engine and ERA, it would last longer and be more dangerous than you think. I doubt most commanders would send them tanks into a direct fight even if they have the upperhand. War's played dirty by hitting your opponent where(and when) he's not looking.

Military purchases isnt always about buying the best, the most expensive. It's about making full use and pushing the capabilities of your equipment to their utmost then training the men (and commanders) to make the best out of them which would turn them into a deadly man and machine force.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

I am saying what is the real value of the T72 Twardy over a 10 year period? What is its real value; real capability against other quality investments??

I believe the T72 Twardy was a bad investment. It is below standard but not without it's historical virtue, that is to say the original T72 is the successor of the T34 in intent and vocation. It stands true to it's soviet origins to build something that could be mass produced easily and give rapid mobility to the kind of Steppe landscapes so typical of Russia and Eastern Europe. A sea of Tanks that could still knock out opposing tanks and no matter the high rate of loss; the same models would keep rolling out of the production lines en masse and available in very large numbers.

But my original question is; what is the real value of the T72 Twardy for the MAF?

I say - 48 is not enough given its capabilities and true purpose. I do not believe what the Polish Brochure says about it's products; the Twardy is still a T72.

I say - Comparative par value against what is available off the shelf; the Abrams or the Leo 2 remains a better purchase. A better investment in armour, mobility, punch and speed. A better deterrent for the MAF.

You still haven't answered my question.

Military purchases isnt always about buying the best, the most expensive. It's about making full use and pushing the capabilities of your equipment to their utmost then training the men (and commanders) to make the best out of them which would turn them into a deadly man and machine force.

Defence procurement is always a tentative area. Chino is right in pointing out what the MAF must contend with what it has; but that is a discussion of the outcome on the purchase, not whether it was a good purchase.

You on the other hand; say the issue is about training and tactics yet you assume an armoured division does not necessarily need to rely on Superior modern MBTs.

So it seems for you 48 Abrams or 48 Leo 2s would be a better investment. That is what you're saying. What makes you optimistic about 48 T72s?

I still say several hundred Hueys and Cobras would have been a better investment.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

gf0012-austDecember 31st, 2004, 09:19 PM

Thank goodness we know how thick their base armour is. Now if there is some info on the ERA - the Russian call it Kontrak? Wonder what that means.
option 1) One of the reasons why ERA is not popular with some militaries is that the best anti-tank weapon is another tank. A qualified gunner on a western MBT has to hit that moving 1sq metre target with multiple shots while they are moving as well. so you could well have a gunner who is trained to slot a target in a meeting engagement speed of anything between 20-80kph. Thats multiple shots spaced at reload intervals of maybe 10 secs apart. The first round will kill the ERA, the second will hit primary defensive armour - and depending on the range - that will determine if the tank is dead within 2 rounds - or 3 rounds.

In addition - you only need a mobility kill to take it out of the fluidity game - if it's armed and static - then it just became easier to kill anyway.

option 2) If you aren't using another tank as a tank killer - then (if it's like singapore), then you are using co-ordinated teams. say 4 teams (on average). 1 for mobility kill, 1 for ERA, and 2 for a follow up. Thats why any tank slotted by a MANPAT team has not been used with proper doctrine - which is why training and discipline beats enthusiasm everytime.

option 3. a black hats worst nightmare is arty or MLRS used for grid work. No amount of armour and ERA will protect a tank caught in "grid work"

option 4. the final nightmare - CAS

thats the difference between professional armies and pretend armies - MBT's are used as part of a combined response - use them like a tracked version of the "charge of the light brigade" at Crimea - and you'll lose them.

Some old wisdom from GF00012. The Pendekar Burut PT 91 is a T72 that would just get knocked out like it's counterparts in Desert Storm and the Gulf War.

What a BAD investment.

 

[swerve]

gf0012-austDecember 31st, 2004, 09:19 PM

...One of the reasons why ERA is not popular with some militaries is that the best anti-tank weapon is another tank. A qualified gunner on a western MBT has to hit that moving 1sq metre target with multiple shots while they are moving as well. so you could well have a gunner who is trained to slot a target in a meeting engagement speed of anything between 20-80kph. Thats multiple shots spaced at reload intervals of maybe 10 secs apart. The first round will kill the ERA, the second will hit primary defensive armour - .......

The chance of a second hit on the same ERA block is rather small (they're a lot smaller than 1 square metre), & therefore if the ERA is capable of defeating one hit, on average it will defeat many.

 

[DavidDCM]

That's the very sense of the small size of ERA. While I am (or better was) a trained gunner on the Leo 2, I'm surely not as experienced as Waylander and Eckherl, but I nonetheless can definitely say that it is impossible for a tank gunner to hit a spot the size of a paper-sheet twice on purpose, even if it is non moving. If that happens it is totally by luck, not by skill. I'm quite sure the same goes for ATGM's and other anti-tank weapons. And by the way, if it would be possible to destroy the PT (or any other ERA-tank) by hitting the same spot twice, than it would similarily possible to destroy the Leopard or Abrams by hitting the same spot twice.
As the armour protection of the Leopard 2 is classified in the same way as that of the PT-91M, no one can really say that the Leo 2 had a higher chance of surivivability in the Southeastasian theatre.

 

[weasel1962]

Deleted

 

[Waylander]

I can only just subscribe what David and Swerve have said.
If the ERA supported armor on a tank is able to defeat an incoming round it will also survive multiple more hits by the same type of round (Besides the usual bad luck).


The base armor of the PT-91 is not that classified at all. The hull consists of a plain normal T-72M1 making it defenitely inferior to a Leopard 2A4 in terms of pure passive protection. I would even expect KMW and Rheinmetall to use some data of the several tests they did with ex-NVA T-72M1s as a selling agrument...
The question is what kind of an impact the ERAWA-1 and -2 tiles have onto an incoming round.
I know that modern russian ERA tiles are usually able to withstand artillery fragments and autocannons up to 30mm. At least that's what they say. I would take it with a grain of salt and while I believe it is perfectly possible that they survive most artillery fragments and ACs upt to 20mm I seriously doubt that they can withstand a 30mm APFSDS.

It is also questionable how usefull they are against modern tandem rounds like on PzFst3, RPG-28/7V. Modern top attack ATGMs like Javelin and Spike-LR are defenitely a killer but that's true for all current MBTs.

I think the PTs are going to protect you against most normal HEAT rounds (Be it ATWs, ATGMs or HEAT rounds up to 125mm).
If it can withstand a DM63 fired from a L/44 remains questionable, especially at the usual smaller distances. It is real overkill for a naked T-72M1 and even if ERA reduces the effectiveness a little bit it should rip through the PT without problems.
Nevertheless an unupgraded Leopard 2A4 could also very well have a hard time against the PT's new 2A46MS gun.

Some people her have also already stated that tanks are not just able to perform massive mechanized battles in relatively open terrian but also have some advantages in rather limited terrain.

While air assault is an option to seize relatively less defended key points and to quickly reinforce weakpoints every air assault is going to get massacred if it has to perform a direct counterassault against a mechanized ground force even if there is difficult terrain.
Not to talk of fortified positions and other such stuff. Helicopters tend to get very vulnerable to ground fire of all kinds in a highly complex battlespace and even the small arms fire and MANPADs of a company of light infantry in fortified and camoed positions is going to be a real headache for every group of helicopters which doesn't sees them first.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Chino]

Tactics have to be different today compared to WW2. CAS and Arty means any concentration of armour is going to be a prime target of these assets.

They were prime targets in WW2, too.

But let's not get into "armchair strategists" territory.

Apologies for starting it.

 

[eckherl]

gf0012-austDecember 31st, 2004, 09:19 PM

Thank goodness we know how thick their base armour is. Now if there is some info on the ERA - the Russian call it Kontrak? Wonder what that means.
option 1) One of the reasons why ERA is not popular with some militaries is that the best anti-tank weapon is another tank. A qualified gunner on a western MBT has to hit that moving 1sq metre target with multiple shots while they are moving as well. so you could well have a gunner who is trained to slot a target in a meeting engagement speed of anything between 20-80kph. Thats multiple shots spaced at reload intervals of maybe 10 secs apart. The first round will kill the ERA, the second will hit primary defensive armour - and depending on the range - that will determine if the tank is dead within 2 rounds - or 3 rounds.

In addition - you only need a mobility kill to take it out of the fluidity game - if it's armed and static - then it just became easier to kill anyway.

option 2) If you aren't using another tank as a tank killer - then (if it's like singapore), then you are using co-ordinated teams. say 4 teams (on average). 1 for mobility kill, 1 for ERA, and 2 for a follow up. Thats why any tank slotted by a MANPAT team has not been used with proper doctrine - which is why training and discipline beats enthusiasm everytime.

option 3. a black hats worst nightmare is arty or MLRS used for grid work. No amount of armour and ERA will protect a tank caught in "grid work"

option 4. the final nightmare - CAS

thats the difference between professional armies and pretend armies - MBT's are used as part of a combined response - use them like a tracked version of the "charge of the light brigade" at Crimea - and you'll lose them.

Some old wisdom from GF00012. The Pendekar Burut PT 91 is a T72 that would just get knocked out like it's counterparts in Desert Storm and the Gulf War.

What a BAD investment.

There are other factors in why T-72`s were easily knocked out in GW 1 and 2 and it is not a fair assessment on your part to even think about comparing the two tanks to each other due to technology advances that are part of Twardy, the training level and moral of the Iraqi soldiers etc, etc.

 

[eckherl]

I can only just subscribe what David and Swerve have said.
If the ERA supported armor on a tank is able to defeat an incoming round it will also survive multiple more hits by the same type of round (Besides the usual bad luck).


The base armor of the PT-91 is not that classified at all. The hull consists of a plain normal T-72M1 making it defenitely inferior to a Leopard 2A4 in terms of pure passive protection. I would even expect KMW and Rheinmetall to use some data of the several tests they did with ex-NVA T-72M1s as a selling agrument...
The question is what kind of an impact the ERAWA-1 and -2 tiles have onto an incoming round.
I know that modern russian ERA tiles are usually able to withstand artillery fragments and autocannons up to 30mm. At least that's what they say. I would take it with a grain of salt and while I believe it is perfectly possible that they survive most artillery fragments and ACs upt to 20mm I seriously doubt that they can withstand a 30mm APFSDS.

It is also questionable how usefull they are against modern tandem rounds like on PzFst3, RPG-28/7V. Modern top attack ATGMs like Javelin and Spike-LR are defenitely a killer but that's true for all current MBTs.

I think the PTs are going to protect you against most normal HEAT rounds (Be it ATWs, ATGMs or HEAT rounds up to 125mm).
If it can withstand a DM63 fired from a L/44 remains questionable, especially at the usual smaller distances. It is real overkill for a naked T-72M1 and even if ERA reduces the effectiveness a little bit it should rip through the PT without problems.
Nevertheless an unupgraded Leopard 2A4 could also very well have a hard time against the PT's new 2A46MS gun.

Some people her have also already stated that tanks are not just able to perform massive mechanized battles in relatively open terrian but also have some advantages in rather limited terrain.

While air assault is an option to seize relatively less defended key points and to quickly reinforce weakpoints every air assault is going to get massacred if it has to perform a direct counterassault against a mechanized ground force even if there is difficult terrain.
Not to talk of fortified positions and other such stuff. Helicopters tend to get very vulnerable to ground fire of all kinds in a highly complex battlespace and even the small arms fire and MANPADs of a company of light infantry in fortified and camoed positions is going to be a real headache for every group of helicopters which doesn't sees them first.

ERAWA 1 and 2 can withstand artillery fragments and auto cannon bursts up to 30mm with the exception being if DU and later generation Tungsten projectiles are used, then even 20 and 25mm will be a challenge to stop. I am also skeptical in the fact that it will stop any type of latest APFSDS in the caliber of 105, ie: (M833 or M990A1). If they get capped with any model type APFSDS in 120mm caliber, then the show is over.

 

[qwerty223]

ERAWA 1 and 2 can withstand artillery fragments and auto cannon bursts up to 30mm with the exception being if DU and later generation Tungsten projectiles are used, then even 20 and 25mm will be a challenge to stop. I am also skeptical in the fact that it will stop any type of latest APFSDS in the caliber of 105, ie: (M833 or M990A1). If they get capped with any model type APFSDS in 120mm caliber, then the show is over.

well i am sure to defeat passive armor is why the engineers put their effort for. But then again, if their effort are worth of credit, I doubt any passive on other MBTs will have an easy time with those DU, latest gene Tungsten, APFSDS and tandem rounds.

 

[Waylander]

But the passive protection of a nice old T-72M1 (And that's what is under the new gadgets of a PT-91M...) is a galaxy away from the passive protection of the newest tanks like a M1A2SEP, Leopard 2E, Merkava Mrk.IV, etc.

And that's the fundamental problem of the PT. It already has the maximum protection one can get out of a normal T-72M1 with the additional ERAWA-1 and 2.
Unlike the Singaporeans they ordered a tank which is at the end of it's upgrade path with nearly no further room for additional protection (Maybe a little bit better ERA tiles or an APS but that's it).

And while it may be enough for today with the best on the other side of the fence being some Leopard IIA4 from Singapore or M60A3s from Thailand it is not going to be enough for the future.
Buying Ukrainian T-84s, T-80UDs or Russian T-90S would have been the better option without having to pay a much bigger price.

 

[DavidDCM]

This page claims that ERAWA decreases the penetration performance of an KE-round by 30 to 40 %, now would a modern 120mm KE with 60 to 70 % be enough to get through a PT-91M turret?

Well, I think so, and I agree that your life is not much worth if you sit in a PT and a DM33 or better is flying towards you. Probably it will be enough to stop a 105mm round.

BTW, this page, which at least gives a source (the manufacturer) for their claims, says nothing about ERAWA's influence on KE, only on HEAT.

 

[eckherl]

well i am sure to defeat passive armor is why the engineers put their effort for. But then again, if their effort are worth of credit, I doubt any passive on other MBTs will have an easy time with those DU, latest gene Tungsten, APFSDS and tandem rounds.

That would depend on which side of the fence that you are on so to speak in regards to KE projectile penetration values against armor . Again I would speculate that with the APFSDS in the U.S 105mm caliber that M774 and older penetrators will have a tough go at penetrating the 60% frontal arc on a T-72M1 with Polands reactive armor packages. I am in agreement with DavidDCM that both ERA packages offer better protection against shaped charged war heads ie: Heat and Hesh type projectiles which were actually more of a issue/concern with the Former Warsaw Pact Forces, they have always felt that they had NATO outgunned when it came to MBT to MBT type engagements, thus the average ground pounder with supporting vehicles including attack helicopters became more and more of a concern of slowing down the echelons, throw in artillery FASCAM style projectiles and fast mover ordanance one can see the concern. I am not saying that NATO tanks would not of played a issue because they surely would of taken their toll against Warsaw Pact, it was simply a numbers game against NATO armor with supporting assets.

 

[qwerty223]

But the passive protection of a nice old T-72M1 (And that's what is under the new gadgets of a PT-91M...) is a galaxy away from the passive protection of the newest tanks like a M1A2SEP, Leopard 2E, Merkava Mrk.IV, etc.

And that's the fundamental problem of the PT. It already has the maximum protection one can get out of a normal T-72M1 with the additional ERAWA-1 and 2.
Unlike the Singaporeans they ordered a tank which is at the end of it's upgrade path with nearly no further room for additional protection (Maybe a little bit better ERA tiles or an APS but that's it).

And while it may be enough for today with the best on the other side of the fence being some Leopard IIA4 from Singapore or M60A3s from Thailand it is not going to be enough for the future.
Buying Ukrainian T-84s, T-80UDs or Russian T-90S would have been the better option without having to pay a much bigger price.

Yes, i agreed with that. The point i want to bring out is that, probably MA had anticipated the future grow of the surrounding counterpart. They had predicted the growth of their counterparts are within the protential profile of the Pendekar MBT. However i also agreed that MA may had been planing for T-90 and its variant for the future. After all, Pendekar is a good trainner for the much more sophisticate T-90. But the cost to operate T-90 would be much more higher than the one u predicted.

 

[Waylander]

What makes operating T-90s so much more expensive? Is Russia pushing the prices for spare parts? Then go and buy Ukrainian stuff. They will be happy to have a new customer and I am sure one gets a good price.
IMHO some parts for the PT can be bought on the international market for T-72s but most of the advanced gadgets one needs to buy in Germany, France, Poland, etc. Shouldn't make it a bargain compared to Russian and Ukrainian offers.

And the future growth potential of the Leopard IIA4 is defenitely outside of the potential profile of PT-91M. If for example Singapore ever thinks that their Leos are not advanced enough they can easily upgrade them in different steps all the way up to A6EX config and there are more upgrades in the pipe.

Malaysia just can't do the same with their PTs as they nearly reached the end of the T-72M1 development path with it.

IMHO it was just a bad deal compared to what would have been possible without stretching the budget too far.

 

[qwerty223]

What makes operating T-90s so much more expensive? Is Russia pushing the prices for spare parts? Then go and buy Ukrainian stuff. They will be happy to have a new customer and I am sure one gets a good price.
IMHO some parts for the PT can be bought on the international market for T-72s but most of the advanced gadgets one needs to buy in Germany, France, Poland, etc. Shouldn't make it a bargain compared to Russian and Ukrainian offers.

And the future growth potential of the Leopard IIA4 is defenitely outside of the potential profile of PT-91M. If for example Singapore ever thinks that their Leos are not advanced enough they can easily upgrade them in different steps all the way up to A6EX config and there are more upgrades in the pipe.

Malaysia just can't do the same with their PTs as they nearly reached the end of the T-72M1 development path with it.

IMHO it was just a bad deal compared to what would have been possible without stretching the budget too far.

The matter is not about how much the add-ons cost in the open market. Its about the predeveloped add-on packages offered to the T-72 operators. As we all know, credible upgrade packages are very limited. But on the other hand, if you did follow the development on the Russian counterpart, u will notice that the Russian picked an interesting approach. Instead of only adding more armor aka protection to the vehicle, the Russian went on adding redundant active sensors in order to achieve a first hit rather than a counterstrike and expand the tank's operation profile. And what makes an T-90 superior than a T-72? Armor is certainly a very small part of it. The FC complex that incooperates all of those sensors and devices is the main factor behind. These sophisticate sensors and devices are also expensive in the 1st cost and following operation cost. While u must agree that a naked T-90 is not far from a PT-91M. Therefore for the reason i explained above, it will cost way more than the most costly upgrade package offer for the T-72.