What is so "unique" about laser warning system, which responds with smoke grenades? They write as if it is not found on any other tank in the world. It is very basic. I don't know whether to drop dead or laugh when I read that.
Malaysian Army/Land forces discussions
- Thread starter weasel1962
- Start date
Well, it protects the tank, and that's it (you're the one who regards protection as more important than absolutely anything else, so you should be happy that the PT-91 has one, or not? 
).
Of course laser warning systems are not unique in the world. He probably wanted to say that the system itself is not used by anyone else so far, and than indeed expressed it a little mistakable. Or maybe he is simply no armor expert. I don't know this particular magazine and it's general quality, nor this particular author. I'm sure you could contact him via email if you really think his work makes you drop dead or laugh or whatever.
).Of course laser warning systems are not unique in the world. He probably wanted to say that the system itself is not used by anyone else so far, and than indeed expressed it a little mistakable. Or maybe he is simply no armor expert. I don't know this particular magazine and it's general quality, nor this particular author. I'm sure you could contact him via email if you really think his work makes you drop dead or laugh or whatever.
A few points to note about the ADJ:Well, it protects the tank, and that's it (you're the one who regards protection as more important than absolutely anything else, so you should be happy that the PT-91 has one, or not?
Of course laser warning systems are not unique in the world. He probably wanted to say that the system itself is not used by anyone else so far, and than indeed expressed it a little mistakable. Or maybe he is simply no armor expert. I don't know this particular magazine and it's general quality, nor this particular author. I'm sure you could contact him via email if you really think his work makes you drop dead or laugh or whatever.
(i) It is a Malaysian publication and any mention of MAF equipment helps with readership engagement in its home market.
(ii) It is smart enough to publish articles by our fellow forum member Dzirhan, so it can't be too bad.
(iii) The Nov 2008 issue of ADJ carried a 4 page interview with SAF's Chief of Army and broke the news that Singapore's Leopard 2A4s are going to be upgraded with improved FCS, all round armour protection and upgraded running gear but the L44 gun is retained [ Not a bad scoop for a regional trade magazine and that no local Singapore press were provided with such details].
(ii) It is smart enough to publish articles by our fellow forum member Dzirhan, so it can't be too bad.
(iii) The Nov 2008 issue of ADJ carried a 4 page interview with SAF's Chief of Army and broke the news that Singapore's Leopard 2A4s are going to be upgraded with improved FCS, all round armour protection and upgraded running gear but the L44 gun is retained [
Not a bad scoop for a regional trade magazine and that no local Singapore press were provided with such details].I am not defending the magazine or the PT-91M but we need look at the situation in context. The PT-91M acquisition adds to the corporate knowledge of the MAF in the area of armour operations and the tank when properly employed is still lethal on the modern battlefield. The PT-91M provides an opportunity for the MAF to improve their combined arms operations doctrine. This can only be good for the MAF.
Last edited:
Just a few quick thoughts on defence magazines:
One of the things that has to be borne in mind is that a large portions of defence writers are jack of all trades with the remainder being specialists in a particular field, the reason being a combination of two factors, one is that most defence publications can only maintain a few specialists and in order to cover news and developments etc all over the place, you need to have have writers capable of writing in a variety of fields so occaisonally you will get one or two mistakes or oversights because the writer is not a full specialist in the particular area, other time editing mistakes/wrong grammar/subbing errors occur not to mention that there most times writers are working on a number of articles along with deadlines or are back from travelling etc so a slip-up or minor errors occur.
Also a lot of defence writers are freelance so being a jack of all trades ensures more work rather than being a specialist with only limited areas of work.
I notice there's a tendency for military enthusiasts on various forums to nitpick over minor-slip ups in defence media articles. While the defence media does need to ensure accuracy in it's articles occaisonally minor slip-ups occur and sometimes we're only as good as our sources who can also make mistakes or tell us the wrong things. As I mention above, time sometimes is the biggest reason why mistakes are made, as writers need to meet deadlines and when you have to travel to shows and attend events etc, mistakes are occaisonally made because one is rushing and have a dozen other things on hand to keep on top of.
ADJ is a Malaysian based regional publication and they are pretty much read in the S-E Asia region, think the editor said that one of their biggest subscribers base was Singapore.
One of the things that has to be borne in mind is that a large portions of defence writers are jack of all trades with the remainder being specialists in a particular field, the reason being a combination of two factors, one is that most defence publications can only maintain a few specialists and in order to cover news and developments etc all over the place, you need to have have writers capable of writing in a variety of fields so occaisonally you will get one or two mistakes or oversights because the writer is not a full specialist in the particular area, other time editing mistakes/wrong grammar/subbing errors occur not to mention that there most times writers are working on a number of articles along with deadlines or are back from travelling etc so a slip-up or minor errors occur.
Also a lot of defence writers are freelance so being a jack of all trades ensures more work rather than being a specialist with only limited areas of work.
I notice there's a tendency for military enthusiasts on various forums to nitpick over minor-slip ups in defence media articles. While the defence media does need to ensure accuracy in it's articles occaisonally minor slip-ups occur and sometimes we're only as good as our sources who can also make mistakes or tell us the wrong things. As I mention above, time sometimes is the biggest reason why mistakes are made, as writers need to meet deadlines and when you have to travel to shows and attend events etc, mistakes are occaisonally made because one is rushing and have a dozen other things on hand to keep on top of.
ADJ is a Malaysian based regional publication and they are pretty much read in the S-E Asia region, think the editor said that one of their biggest subscribers base was Singapore.
Sure it is possible.
It just makes it harder.
But some examples.
With a tank one lases a point (tree, rock, whatever) near to the target and gets nearly the right range.
The same is possible with an ATGM. Just point the laser designator late onto the target while targeting something close to the target till the missile nearly reached it's target.
If you are targeted by a tank the first round is going to come no matter how fast your laser warning system is. The time between lasing and firing ist just too short.
But it may save you from the next rounds.
And just how is it going to save you from the next round fired from a tank, for how fast a tank lases to a point target I doubt that Twardy would even be able to detect it.
For how fast a tank laser ranger finder lases I doubt that this type of system would even be able to detect it, this system was built more towards anti tank missile systems that rely on laser guidance systems that everyone was so worried about inregards to NATO forces during the good old days.If the system is coupled to the smoke grenade launchers the following IR-smoke screen might save your ass.
That is if the round fired into the smoke screen doesn't get you anyway...
I thought these systems are sensible enough to detect an incoming laser range finder.
That their main task is to give some additional situational awareness against ATGM attacks is right but if they are able to (And up till now I thought they are) detect a laser range finder they may add a little bit of protection.
That their main task is to give some additional situational awareness against ATGM attacks is right but if they are able to (And up till now I thought they are) detect a laser range finder they may add a little bit of protection.
what happen if the tank were coming at you..ie front face you....and as soon as it detect the laser, began spewing .50 at your position or even worst lobing HE at you.
That's why you don't target him directly but something next to him and just switch directly onto his silouette when your ATGM is close to impact.
If your position is spotted anyway in can get rather nasty as the tank platoon is surely going to surpress you or at best kill you with coax and main gun fire.
But that's war...
If your opponent is using a Javelin or Spike it doesn't matter anyway as they are tracking your IR-silouette and with Spike you don't even need a LOS to the target so you won't spot the launch point and you are not able to attack it.
If your position is spotted anyway in can get rather nasty as the tank platoon is surely going to surpress you or at best kill you with coax and main gun fire.
But that's war...
If your opponent is using a Javelin or Spike it doesn't matter anyway as they are tracking your IR-silouette and with Spike you don't even need a LOS to the target so you won't spot the launch point and you are not able to attack it.
thanks...nice info on anti tank tactic.That's why you don't target him directly but something next to him and just switch directly onto his silouette when your ATGM is close to impact.
If your position is spotted anyway in can get rather nasty as the tank platoon is surely going to surpress you or at best kill you with coax and main gun fire.
But that's war...
If your opponent is using a Javelin or Spike it doesn't matter anyway as they are tracking your IR-silouette and with Spike you don't even need a LOS to the target so you won't spot the launch point and you are not able to attack it.
interesting to note that spike and javelin track IR -silouette....read my previous post #623 .
http://defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=167237&postcount=623
Oooops, I got confused.
Actually I remember we talked about the Barracuda system some time ago in this thread but the post by ggk mentioned paint and so I hopped onto the wrong train.
Jup, this system seems decent enough.
Actually it would be interesting to get to know what for example the Danes think of it. In the end they have the direct comparison as they used their Leopard IIA5DKs without the Barracuda net in the past.
Actually I remember we talked about the Barracuda system some time ago in this thread but the post by ggk mentioned paint and so I hopped onto the wrong train.
Jup, this system seems decent enough.
Actually it would be interesting to get to know what for example the Danes think of it. In the end they have the direct comparison as they used their Leopard IIA5DKs without the Barracuda net in the past.
Twardy system along with part of the Russian Shtora system kinda already work inregards to that, both systems detect someone painting them with a laser guidance beam and both systems will automatically slew the turret to face the threat along with giving audible and visual alarms to the gunner and tc, both systems can be also placed on auto mode to fire IR grenades. This would be a good indicator for that crew to orientate their tank in the direction of attack due to better vehicle protection and being able to bring all weapons to bear on that threat.
I wouldn't feel comfortable with the system being on auto.
A system which automatically lays an IR smokescreen effectively disrupts LOS...for both parties.
I want to be able to decide wether I want to pop smoke or not. While the smoke screen might save your ass for the moment it also disrupts your view on the enemy and effectively disables you ability to reach out and touch the enemy.
This decision should be made accordingly to the situation and not automatically.
A system which automatically lays an IR smokescreen effectively disrupts LOS...for both parties.
I want to be able to decide wether I want to pop smoke or not. While the smoke screen might save your ass for the moment it also disrupts your view on the enemy and effectively disables you ability to reach out and touch the enemy.
This decision should be made accordingly to the situation and not automatically.
Doesnt ARENA APS take of of ATGM's? And I think Shtora decides which modes to use 1st even in auto.