Malaysian Army/Land forces discussions

[qwerty223]

Which still doesn't negate my point. When going up against a force that doesn't have any tanks, even an old tank providing support on your side gives you a distinct advantage. That is the advantage of numbers. Malaysia has only 70+ tanks. Thailand has around 700+.



That applies for both Malaysia and Thailand, so that doesn't change the situation in Malaysia' favour.



It was peace loving Malaysia that first threatened war. Bernama reported FM Syed Hamid on 31 December 2002 "…. Singapore has two choices. If it refuses to compromise…go to war".



I was talking about Singapore's land reclamation in Tuas and Tekong, which Malaysia unsuccessfully tried to stop by bringing the case to the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea.

For all the nationalism matter i drop it here.

1. No matter how you upgrade an old tank, its still an old tank, believe it or not, there is no question whats the result in 1 vs 1 scenario. With the upgrades you may argue, but a upgraded SU-27SK certainly cannot match a SU-30MK series, both are revise of Flanker, but it shows why worth to redesign.
2. Believe or not again, the only terrain that links both nations will prevent a tank war.
3. Lets put tank war aside. Modern warfare at such a complex terrain will not reproduce what happened in Mid East Wars. Even in a 2D aspect, all kinds of weopon you can name it will cooperate each other to give the enemy its heaviest punch. Talking about MiD East Tank Wars, there is a good example how to defeat a huge chunk of metal beast with not even a single tank, but ATGMs.
4. Or you may argue Thai with more tanks will win in an attrition war. Thats not true either. Each combat, PT-91M will have more chance to survive, and thats what the Germans are practicing.

 

[Waylander]

1. Or you may argue Thai with more tanks will win in an attrition war. Thats not true either. Each combat, PT-91M will have more chance to survive, and thats what the Germans are practicing.

Could you please elaborate what you mean with this?

 

[Chino]

IDF Super Shermans with 105mm guns were able to match soviet T55s.

Not all upgrades are useless.

 

[qwerty223]

Could you please elaborate what you mean with this?

German army is updating Leopard rapidly but keeping them in a low number. A good example of keeping quality instead of quantity.

IDF Super Shermans with 105mm guns were able to match soviet T55s.

Not all upgrades are useless.

That is the case of new gun vs old tank (armor).
Whats in the task given above was new gun vs new armor (tank).

 

[DavidDCM]

The reason Germany has so few tanks is that our main mission is not defending our own soil anymore. The chance that we will engage in war with one of our neighbours in the medium-term future (let's say, the next 20, 30 years or so) is like next to zero. So we neither have the need nor the money to keep our former tank fleet of thousands of tanks alive.
It's not really that we think we could stop a serious invasion with our 225 tanks by now, it's just something like the basic level of Panzers that we don't want to abolish. But of course, if one of our neighbours would begin to rearm it's army and make any serious hints that he might invade us, we too would begin to stack up our forces, again.

To the Malaysian tank fleet: In Southeast-Asia, tanks are not that important. But of course, Thailand could use them more amassed than Malaysia. Not every battle will include PT-91M's, but it will include some kind of Thai tanks (I hope you guys understand what I want to say). One tank bataillon is just not enough to cover the whole front. And the older tanks, even those like M41 Walker or M48A5 are still more than suited to defeat the Scorpions and Sibmas that Malaysia has at the moment.
And don't forget that not only tanks can destroy tanks. Anti-tank rocket launchers, mines etc. will be a serious threat (to both sides), especially in a terrain like a Southeastasian jungle, where it is very difficult to keep the overview.

 

[Transient]

No matter how you upgrade an old tank, its still an old tank, believe it or not, there is no question whats the result in 1 vs 1 scenario. With the upgrades you may argue, but a upgraded SU-27SK certainly cannot match a SU-30MK series, both are revise of Flanker, but it shows why worth to redesign.

Why is it that David can get the point but you cannot? The advantage of numbers means that very often, Malaysian troops will find themselves without tank support while the Thai forces will have it. That is a huge advantage for the Thai army. Given the tank number ratio of 10:1 in favour of Thailand, that means that for every skirmish that involves participation of tanks, almost 9 out of 10 times the Malaysian troops will find themselves against tank supported Thai infantry while they themselves will be without tank support. Let me give you an example. In WWII the Americans had the Shermans while the Germans had the Tigers and Panzers. It is acknowledged that when placed in direct comparison the German tanks were superior. But they had far fewer numbers of tanks as compared to the Shermans which were mass produced. This means that American troops had the support of the Sherman tank in many more engagements than the German troops had the support of their own Panzers. Which side do you think won more ground engagements?

Believe or not again, the only terrain that links both nations will prevent a tank war.

Nobody said anything about a mass tank on tank engagement. Read and understand what I have said so far. Everything I had said points out a scenario where tanks are supporting troops.

Lets put tank war aside. Modern warfare at such a complex terrain will not reproduce what happened in Mid East Wars. Even in a 2D aspect, all kinds of weopon you can name it will cooperate each other to give the enemy its heaviest punch. Talking about MiD East Tank Wars, there is a good example how to defeat a huge chunk of metal beast with not even a single tank, but ATGMs.

Tanks have to be complemented with infantry. This is combined arms tactics, and the Israelis thought they could throw away the book on that. They thought tanks could go without infantry support and paid for it. Tanks are not there to go against tanks. Once the tanks had infantry by their side, no such losses happened again.

Or you may argue Thai with more tanks will win in an attrition war. Thats not true either. Each combat, PT-91M will have more chance to survive, and thats what the Germans are practicing.

You are thinking like the Israelis. You are thinking of massive tank vs tank battles, which you yourself said cannot happen in the terrain. What will happen is small detachments of tanks supporting infantry advances. When you look at it from that perspective, you'll finally understand the advantage of numbers.

And don't forget that not only tanks can destroy tanks. Anti-tank rocket launchers, mines etc. will be a serious threat (to both sides), especially in a terrain like a Southeastasian jungle, where it is very difficult to keep the overview.

ATGMs can of course kill tanks. But when the enemy tank is protected by covering fire coming from infantry and mortar/artillery fire, their employment becomes very difficult.

 

[eckherl]

For all the nationalism matter i drop it here.

1. No matter how you upgrade an old tank, its still an old tank, believe it or not, there is no question whats the result in 1 vs 1 scenario. With the upgrades you may argue, but a upgraded SU-27SK certainly cannot match a SU-30MK series, both are revise of Flanker, but it shows why worth to redesign.
2. Believe or not again, the only terrain that links both nations will prevent a tank war.
3. Lets put tank war aside. Modern warfare at such a complex terrain will not reproduce what happened in Mid East Wars. Even in a 2D aspect, all kinds of weopon you can name it will cooperate each other to give the enemy its heaviest punch. Talking about MiD East Tank Wars, there is a good example how to defeat a huge chunk of metal beast with not even a single tank, but ATGMs.
4. Or you may argue Thai with more tanks will win in an attrition war. Thats not true either. Each combat, PT-91M will have more chance to survive, and thats what the Germans are practicing.

Again - if Thailand uses M48A5s or M60A3s with upgraded ammunition they will not have any issues knocking out a upgraded T-72M1, this is going to boil down to who sees who first and shoots. PT-91M advantages are electronics and some armor upgrade but given a engagement range of 1200 meters or less which is the most likely scenario they can be overwhelemed and destroyed, combat experience is also going to play a major factor into this also.

 

[paskal]

Most importantly, the Thais have something both Malaysia and Singapore don't - combat experience. Outdated tanks? Look at their numbers.

Some more accurate numbers.

Thailand:

M41: 150 (all significantly upgraded)
M48A5: 105
M60A1: 53
M60A3: 125
Type 59/69: 24/110 (many are not operational, requirement for 200 tanks to replace them around 2012)
Stingray Light Tanks: 106
Scorpion: 128

These numbers mean that in most engagements between a notional Malaysia vs Thailand war, the Malaysian unit will find themselves without tanks while the Thais will likely have tank support. Even a 'outdated' M41 that 15 year old Paskal so scorns will give a decisive advantage if the Malaysian side doesn't have a tank in that engagement. Guess which side is going to win most of the engagements?



Yes, a grand total of one case. But if we expand Malaysia's international court cases to include Singapore so far, did you take into account Malaysia's miserable attempt to stop Singapore's reclamation works in Singapore's own territory? After which Malaysia tried to put some spin on her failure?

Transient by this statement its proves how you dont now history....
Do me a favour go back to any military school in your country and learn more before making your next move.
Let me teach you something that i learnt about tank combats at my school.

First main principle.

Always get the high ground so that you will have a distinct advantage over your oppenent.

Second.

Fire power and the tank defence must be great to destroy and protect from getting blown to pieces.

third.

Look where you are fighting at.Hows the ground? Muddy,roads,jungle....use all the advantage that you can get.If the oppenent tank is heavy it will likely get stucked into muddy area that will make it like a sitting duck waiting to get shot!

Fourth.

Supports from infantry in that battlefield as quick as possible.
Three main principle in that battlefield.

1.manpower
2.deployable
3.Firepower

Dont tell if you said you are in the army i can bet they will teach you this four important principle Old transient.

One more thing that i learnt in history about tank confrantation is numbers does not count that much.You see the germans tiger tanks were superiourly outnumbered against the allies tanks.But still it help the germans to destroy lots of the allies tanks.The only think that did stop the tiger tank from conquring the battlefield is the allies air force attack on its unit.The tiger tank proves that armour and fire power including the professionilism of the rider can help best in dire situation.The allies shot the tiger tank multiples of time and stiill it was operational.

One more tank that inspire me is the T-34 of the russians .During WW1 the russians never even expect the germans to attack them as they were quite close allies.Suddenly the germans turn back on them and strike them hard by conquring 1 by 1 of the russians city.The germans tanks were far more superior then the current tanks that the russians were using.

the russians need to come up with a solution of a new tank that might save russia from total annhilation.Hence come the new era of the T-34.The russia built 3 factories that produce about 30+ t-34 a day.The factories were mainly comprise of women since the men were used in frontlines.The T-34 showed the germans tanks and anti-tank that it have one of the best armour.Artillery shots[on that time were count as anti-tank weapons] did not de mobilized the T-34 from moving ahead.
The T-34 played a great role in winnig the world war.

By the way transient you said that Syed hamid albar malaysia foreign minister wanna start war with singapore first rubbish! You can see about the pulau batu puteh incident even the singapore president were involve in this.I dont think malaysia will lose in that case.well i cannot say but lets just see how it ends up.

But trust me no matter waht happened the MAF is always ready for any confrantations.

 

[kickaflow]

mmm combat experience. i still think that thai has learned some nasty tricks in the gureilla warfare against the viet, at present with about some 300,000 man in army. the tanks that the thai has are capable to operate in this soil.
numbers doesn't count that much, but look at the number.

 

[eckherl]

mmm combat experience. i still think that thai has learned some nasty tricks in the gureilla warfare against the viet, at present with about some 300,000 man in army. the tanks that the thai has are capable to operate in this soil.
numbers doesn't count that much, but look at the number.

Yes - numbers would count and in a big way due to Thailand tank capabilities having no issues destroying a PT91M, even with a high battlefield attrition rate on both sides they will most likely be over run. Also you have to consider logistical support that a defender needs, you can can shoot a combat load in a tank rather quickly.

 

[swerve]

Paskal, Paskal - what can I say?

Don't you know the difference between WW1 & WW2?
And it's clear you have no notion of what actually happened in WW2. During Operation Barbarossa (the German invasion of the USSR), the Germans discovered that the USSR had better tanks than anything Germany had (not the other way round), chief among them the KV-1 & the T-34. German victories were because of superior German tactics, & despite superior Soviet tanks, not because of superior German tanks. The T-34 was not developed in response to the German invasion, but was already in service in large numbers before the invasion. Germany developed the Tiger & Panther tanks in response to encountering superior Soviet tanks, not the other way round. Go and do a bit of reading. Look up what tanks Germany actually had in 1941, & when the Tiger & Panther were introduced.

 

[Waylander]

Not to talk of the fact that the allied air attacks harrased units on the move especially the log tails.
The success of allied air attacks directly against tanks is debatable.

And you managed to throw out some rather unspecific phrases without adressing the points raised by others.

These points are valid.
It is right that the Thais are going to have tank support much more often than units from Malaysia.
Battlefield attrition is going to effect the smaller Malaysian tank force much more.
The expected firing distances give upgraded M60s and M48s defenitely the chance to take out PT-91Ms frontally.

And what kind of school is it that you are in which gives you that much advantage over others?

 

[eckherl]

Transient by this statement its proves how you dont now history....
Do me a favour go back to any military school in your country and learn more before making your next move.
Let me teach you something that i learnt about tank combats at my school.

First main principle.

Always get the high ground so that you will have a distinct advantage over your oppenent.

Second.

Fire power and the tank defence must be great to destroy and protect from getting blown to pieces.

third.

Look where you are fighting at.Hows the ground? Muddy,roads,jungle....use all the advantage that you can get.If the oppenent tank is heavy it will likely get stucked into muddy area that will make it like a sitting duck waiting to get shot!

Fourth.

Supports from infantry in that battlefield as quick as possible.
Three main principle in that battlefield.

1.manpower
2.deployable
3.Firepower

Dont tell if you said you are in the army i can bet they will teach you this four important principle Old transient.

One more thing that i learnt in history about tank confrantation is numbers does not count that much.You see the germans tiger tanks were superiourly outnumbered against the allies tanks.But still it help the germans to destroy lots of the allies tanks.The only think that did stop the tiger tank from conquring the battlefield is the allies air force attack on its unit.The tiger tank proves that armour and fire power including the professionilism of the rider can help best in dire situation.The allies shot the tiger tank multiples of time and stiill it was operational.

One more tank that inspire me is the T-34 of the russians .During WW1 the russians never even expect the germans to attack them as they were quite close allies.Suddenly the germans turn back on them and strike them hard by conquring 1 by 1 of the russians city.The germans tanks were far more superior then the current tanks that the russians were using.

the russians need to come up with a solution of a new tank that might save russia from total annhilation.Hence come the new era of the T-34.The russia built 3 factories that produce about 30+ t-34 a day.The factories were mainly comprise of women since the men were used in frontlines.The T-34 showed the germans tanks and anti-tank that it have one of the best armour.Artillery shots[on that time were count as anti-tank weapons] did not de mobilized the T-34 from moving ahead.
The T-34 played a great role in winnig the world war.

By the way transient you said that Syed hamid albar malaysia foreign minister wanna start war with singapore first rubbish! You can see about the pulau batu puteh incident even the singapore president were involve in this.I dont think malaysia will lose in that case.well i cannot say but lets just see how it ends up.

But trust me no matter waht happened the MAF is always ready for any confrantations.

Do some research Paskal - just out of interest, what school did you go to that taught you tank tactics.

Ah sorry Waylander - I found out too late that you asked the same question about paskals armor teachings.

 

[qwerty223]

Why is it that David can get the point but you cannot? The advantage of numbers means that very often, Malaysian troops will find themselves without tank support while the Thai forces will have it. That is a huge advantage for the Thai army. Given the tank number ratio of 10:1 in favour of Thailand, that means that for every skirmish that involves participation of tanks, almost 9 out of 10 times the Malaysian troops will find themselves against tank supported Thai infantry while they themselves will be without tank support. Let me give you an example. In WWII the Americans had the Shermans while the Germans had the Tigers and Panzers. It is acknowledged that when placed in direct comparison the German tanks were superior. But they had far fewer numbers of tanks as compared to the Shermans which were mass produced. This means that American troops had the support of the Sherman tank in many more engagements than the German troops had the support of their own Panzers. Which side do you think won more ground engagements?



Nobody said anything about a mass tank on tank engagement. Read and understand what I have said so far. Everything I had said points out a scenario where tanks are supporting troops.



Tanks have to be complemented with infantry. This is combined arms tactics, and the Israelis thought they could throw away the book on that. They thought tanks could go without infantry support and paid for it. Tanks are not there to go against tanks. Once the tanks had infantry by their side, no such losses happened again.



You are thinking like the Israelis. You are thinking of massive tank vs tank battles, which you yourself said cannot happen in the terrain. What will happen is small detachments of tanks supporting infantry advances. When you look at it from that perspective, you'll finally understand the advantage of numbers.



ATGMs can of course kill tanks. But when the enemy tank is protected by covering fire coming from infantry and mortar/artillery fire, their employment becomes very difficult.

1. LoL, why you just cant get it? Do you read maps? If you have problem with it, I am sure wikipedia has a simple explanation for you. Anyways, i give you some hint here. The border is centered by a mount terrain, which left 2 narrow route able to deploy tank reg , not to mention jungle terrain further narrow the choice in choosing route. A compact formation is the best for air strike/artillery, given a good planner, precision weapon is unnecessary.
2. But later you tergiversate and claim a loose tank formation accompany with infantries, given a already narrow terrain with a loose deployment, will the maximum deployment number still exceed the max of PT-91M? Its not a hard calculation. If you do think so, i am sure if i have a fleet of ww2 aircraft, there is not problem to wipe out all the infantry with only machine guns.
3. Then now we come into combat efficiency. Lets put the training part aside as there is no solid evidence on both sides. PT-91M is not a polish copy of T-72M. However, the chassis with little modify, what shine are the NATO standards, not the most but one of the most updated parts and systems, with a custom design to integrate them. Converting these into a figure of combat efficiency, in an isolated situation, the fire power of the gun may not impress fellow military fans, but like the M60s with the right ammunition they are guarantee a penetration after a good hit, check 1. The cooperate of new engine, new suspension, new observer(optical/datalink), new stabilizer, turret mechanism and FCS guaranteed a higher engage efficiency, while the new armor, warning system will offer a better survivability, check 2. With a all 21st century configuration, you may bias of it "Russia Breed", but is actually a "Western Breed" beast, a kind which many ppl give blind praise.
4. Yes, David understands Awang se, I understand Awang se, but you dont. Awang se is talking about the whole capacity of the M'sian Army, not only tank reg. What he meant was 2 PT-91M reg with the combination of other assets, the capacity of MA is close if not equal to current RTA. Bring in all the factor David hint us, do you think the VS ratio is still a simple figure of 3:1/6:1/7:1/10:1... ? Yes i admit we will most likely suffer in a long term attrition war, if only, we are stupid enough to counter our enemy with our shorten leg.

David, I give a very high score for the Leopard and the Germany Army. A good coordinate with other inventories, 225 is more than a decent force.
BTW, why you quit Militaryphotos? Your photos were nice.

 

[DavidDCM]

Well, I guess we can all agree that
1.) the outcome of a hypothetical Thai/Malaysian war is impossible to predict
2.) that from a technical point of view the PT-91M is superior to anything Thailand has
3.) that Thailand can field way more tanks and light tanks and therefore is capable of bigger and more armoured (or armor supported) operations in a war scenario

Personally I'm not a big friend of this "They will win because..." vs. "No, they will loose because..." talk, and I'm sure You guys are not, too. There are way to many unknown factors. If it would be so easy to predict a war, our history books would not be full of stories proving otherwise.

The Malaysian/Thai-border must be like in the movie 300
"All funneled in a narrow corridor, where numbers count for nothing."

Offtopic, but: I didn't quit MP.net, one day for an unknown mysterious reason my account there ceased to exist (It was not a punishment by the admins or so, I hadn't posted offensive stuff there ever, and when my account vanished I hadn't even posted anything since days if not weeks). It must have been a data error or stuff like that. Since then I have re-registered under the same nickname, but my first post with the new account has still to be made.

 

[Pro'forma]

The success of allied air attacks directly against tanks is debatable.

The expected firing distances give upgraded M60s and M48s defenitely the chance to take out PT-91Ms frontally.

When taking back the battlefield, is the attendance another type to throw the uniform, to sort out when tanks stop ? In front of the
definitely impossible hill.

 

[kato]

Offtopic:

It's not really that we think we could stop a serious invasion with our 225 tanks by now, it's just something like the basic level of Panzers that we don't want to abolish.

225 Leopard 2A5
125 Leopard 2A6
plus 50 Leopard 2A4 (in training units, to be decommed in the next 1-2 years).

Those 350 are the minimum number, not 225, and it will be kept at least until 2017 under current plans.

 

[DavidDCM]

Yeah, I'm sorry, its 350, but you switched the versions (it's 125 A5 and 225 A6)

But nevertheless, that doesn't change what I wanted to say with that post, and it's way offtopic

 

[Waylander]

The success of allied air attacks directly against tanks is debatable.

The expected firing distances give upgraded M60s and M48s defenitely the chance to take out PT-91Ms frontally.

When taking back the battlefield, is the attendance another type to throw the uniform, to sort out when tanks stop ? In front of the
definitely impossible hill.

Sorry, but I don't get what you want to say.
Could you please elaborate it.

 

[Transient]

LoL, why you just cant get it? Do you read maps? If you have problem with it, I am sure wikipedia has a simple explanation for you. Anyways, i give you some hint here. The border is centered by a mount terrain, which left 2 narrow route able to deploy tank reg , not to mention jungle terrain further narrow the choice in choosing route. A compact formation is the best for air strike/artillery, given a good planner, precision weapon is unnecessary.

What makes you think tanks cannot be used in jungle terrain? You might need a map lesson yourself. There is a 60km front on the east and a 40km front on the west conducive to tank movement. Even Betong provides a reasonable avenue of advance.

But later you tergiversate and claim a loose tank formation accompany with infantries, given a already narrow terrain with a loose deployment, will the maximum deployment number still exceed the max of PT-91M? Its not a hard calculation. If you do think so, i am sure if i have a fleet of ww2 aircraft, there is not problem to wipe out all the infantry with only machine guns.

Don't accuse me of tergiversating just because you took longer to understand than others. I already said, tanks are not limited to flat plains or deserts.

Yes, David understands Awang se, I understand Awang se, but you dont. Awang se is talking about the whole capacity of the M'sian Army, not only tank reg. What he meant was 2 PT-91M reg with the combination of other assets, the capacity of MA is close if not equal to current RTA. Bring in all the factor David hint us, do you think the VS ratio is still a simple figure of 3:1/6:1/7:1/10:1... ? Yes i admit we will most likely suffer in a long term attrition war, if only, we are stupid enough to counter our enemy with our shorten leg.

Close? How? In terms of artillery firepower Thailand trumps Malaysia again. Asset count wise they are superior in virtually every asset type. But in my opinion, the greatest advantage the Thai armed forces have, is combat experience.