Malaysian Army/Land forces discussions

[DavidDCM]

I'm not so sure if they would really go to Russia if they wanted to improve their tanks. That would not only be more expensive but also take much longer time. The PT-91M, although descended from a soviet/Russian design, is build with western/European standards for the most parts. So many Russian components won't be compatible.
For example, in my eyes one of the more urgent points that has to be improved is the TC sight (the French Sagem Vigy-15). It doesn't have it's own thermal sight, and according to Simon Tan in the tanknet, not even override or hunter/killer-mode. That's just outdated. But a better TC sight from Russia won't be so easy to integrate into the whole system. The software etc. will have to be converted and accomodated before it work. Surely neither the cheapest nor the fastest way?

@kaybee: Yes, you're right, I just looked it up again, and you're right, it's the 2nd division that protects the north. The "big" 3rd division is in the south. My fault... :el

 

[Point Defence]

It's me. Regards to my psot on the ATM (MAF) deployment map, Transient said "That is very nice. But it doesn't seem to tally with the ORBAT posted earlier."

Are you referring to the strength of the ATM or the location of the forces??

 

[Transient]

Yes, the location doesn't seem to tally with the location according to the ORBAT. I didn't check which is correct, so I just asked to confirm. I really like your effort, by the way.

 

[Point Defence]

"Are you referring to the strength of the ATM or the location of the forces??"

You are correct that the force location does not seem to tally with the location in the ORBAT. That will be their base camp location. I was suggesting their deployment location might be as I placed them.

Sorry for the inconsistency

 

[mmmbop]

Definitely not DU rounds. Neither will any ASEAN entity. It will be quite embarrassing to declare ASEAN as a nuclear free zone and then start using nuclear ammo....

My guess is Poland's ZPS' 125mm range of ammo.

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/ammunition/zaklady/

Sources from insider said it's going to be Bosnian's.

 

[mmmbop]

Why T-90 - was it a government decision to go with any type of T series MBT that had some modernization. They could of most likely have gone with any MBT that they wanted. Yes, the T-90 is advanced but you cannot state that the PT-91 cannot get the job done in that region in which it is operating in. All these statements that they are having nothing but problems with the Twardy is nothing more but pure speculation, I highly doubt that Malaysia went running for assistance from Russia.

There were problems during the trials however seems to sort out.BTw 6 been delivered and never heard of any other prob pop out.

 

[eckherl]

There were problems during the trials however seems to sort out.BTw 6 been delivered and never heard of any other prob pop out.

Thats what I figured, could you elaborate a little more on the primary tank round what is the Bosian connection.

 

[FSMonster]

Sources from insider said it's going to be Bosnian's.

Bosnian tank ammo you mean? I've never heard of Malaysia's intention to buy any military-related products from Bosnian manufacturers but it's possible.
They could buy anything from small caliber ammo to 155 mm long-range artillery shells (40 km). Also explosives, shell fuses, rockets, howitzers, 125mm tank guns, MLRS mortars and so on.
I know that some private subcontractors with connections to the Iraq were buying mortar shells and other ammo in Bosnia.

This is a sample showing 125 mm tank ammo available:

http://www.pretis.ba/catalogue/cat125.html

 

[Chrom]

What could russia offer as an upgrade?
The weaker basic armor cannot be replaced, the gun seems to be ok and the electronics should also be top (If there are no bugs).

Russia could offer modern ERA, maybe modern ammunition (Is Malaysia happy with the ammo they aquired?).
I don't expect the russians to be able to upgrade the suspension very much.

Basically, Russia can offer "all-in-one" package from single supervisor, with thousands of tanks already in service - so development and maintainig cost are shared with India, Algeria, and other costumers. Guarantied service life and independence from any political pressure.

Plus of course newer ERA, ATGM's, somewhat upgraded gun, possible APS and possible new engine (1200 hp ones). Even newer FCS and TI is not out of question - T-91M is pretty old development, and we speak about future upgrade.

That said, T-91M certainly can do its job, just more expencive and with more hassle (being almost the only custumer of small tank serie...)

P.S. If T-72 can be upgraded with western FCS that surery T-91M can be upgraded with russian. It is not that hard. Russia already have plenty experience in upgrading varios technic to NATO standards.

 

[Waylander]

One has to remember that Malaysia didn't buy the PTs because it is THE king of the hill on the tank market but because it wasn't that expensive (And becaue of some interesting "lobbying"... ).

Adding a new engine, FCS, APS, ERA, ATGMs, optics, etc. is going to push the price and I don't think that this is possible for Malaysia.

BTW, the FCS of the PT should be good enough (Even if I don't like that it doesn't have TC override capability), the same goes for the optics/TI.
And I don't think that tube launched ATGMs are necessary with the expected ranges in Malaysia. Save the storage room for additional HEs and HEATs.

 

[Chrom]

One has to remember that Malaysia didn't buy the PTs because it is THE king of the hill on the tank market but because it wasn't that expensive (And becaue of some interesting "lobbying"... ).

Adding a new engine, FCS, APS, ERA, ATGMs, optics, etc. is going to push the price and I don't think that this is possible for Malaysia.

BTW, the FCS of the PT should be good enough (Even if I don't like that it doesn't have TC override capability), the same goes for the optics/TI.
And I don't think that tube launched ATGMs are necessary with the expected ranges in Malaysia. Save the storage room for additional HEs and HEATs.

As you see, there are a lot of space for improvments and upgrades... And financial considirations can change literally overnight - with another goverment....

 

[Waylander]

Oh, common.
In the end one can say that russia could take the PTs strip them down to their bare hulls and rebuild them with their own equipment.
What's th point in this?
I thought we are talking about real possibilities which make sense, are affordable, are needed and offer a countabke advantage over the original equipment...

 

[Chrom]

Oh, common.
In the end one can say that russia could take the PTs strip them down to their bare hulls and rebuild them with their own equipment.
What's th point in this?
I thought we are talking about real possibilities which make sense, are affordable, are needed and offer a countabke advantage over the original equipment...

Heh, this is true. Still for example APS could be installed, new APFSDS rounds could be supplied, etc.

 

[Waylander]

Sure. An APS, modern KEs or a modern ERA maybe and I listed them before.

But a new engine, a new transmission, a new suspension?
Does the PT needs more hp? Does a new russian transmission/suspension offers any countable advantages?

A new gun? Look at the current threat levels and possible fighting distances. The hardest boy in the neighbourhood is a Leo IIA4.

A new FCS or TI? Unless the Malaysian tankers insist on hunter/killer capabilities and TC override I don't think it is needed.

ATGMs? Again, look at the most possible fighting distances. Additional HEs and HEATs against fortifications middle armored vehicles and infantry should be much more usefull than a handfull of ATGMs per tank.

 

[Chrom]

Sure. An APS, modern KEs or a modern ERA maybe and I listed them before.

But a new engine, a new transmission, a new suspension?
Does the PT needs more hp? Does a new russian transmission/suspension offers any countable advantages?

I dont think PT need more HP, but russian engine could offer cheaper replacement (engines need to be changed anyway after 10.000 km) and upgrade in one package

A new gun? Look at the current threat levels and possible fighting distances. The hardest boy in the neighbourhood is a Leo IIA4.

May be not gun itself, but some tools for a gun. For example automatic temperature adjustment for better aiming.

A new FCS or TI? Unless the Malaysian tankers insist on hunter/killer capabilities and TC override I don't think it is needed.

Why do you think Malaysian tankers do not insist on such capability? They are like all tankers - always think "FCS cant be good enouth".
Of course, price is a problem.

ATGMs? Again, look at the most possible fighting distances. Additional HEs and HEATs against fortifications middle armored vehicles and infantry should be much more usefull than a handfull of ATGMs per tank.

Doubt so. ATGM is DIFFERENT possibility, addidional HEs and HEATs are just slightly more of the same. I know what i would choose for my tank.

Again, i think any tank including old M-60 will be enouth. I doubt Malaysia will see a war.

 

[Waylander]

You would take the ATGMs?
You knwo what?
In a normal middle european or desert environment I would do this too?
But in the expected terrain of south east asia? No?
What does it offers to me at mostly close range what a modern HEAT can't do or does even better?

 

[Chrom]

You would take the ATGMs?
You knwo what?
In a normal middle european or desert environment I would do this too?
But in the expected terrain of south east asia? No?
What does it offers to me at mostly close range what a modern HEAT can't do or does even better?

See? Didnt your learned to choose favorable grounds? ATGM's is an option what can be easely exploited, provided some preparations made...

 

[Waylander]

Sure. But I also learned that when statistics tell me that I am going to need a proper HEAT much more often than a long range ATGM I know what I choose to have in my ammo bunker.

In the end during most of the simulated engagements in the north german plain I was part of we gunned it out within 1000m, rarely up to 2000m and nearly never at more than 2000m. Not because we couldn't hit at these ranges but just because we didn't identify any targets at these ranges.

Gives you an impression what you can expect in a terrain which is "a little bit" less good tank terrain...

 

[qwerty223]

Again, i think any tank including old M-60 will be enouth. I doubt Malaysia will see a war.

We prepare for present, as well as the future.

 

[swerve]

See? Didnt your learned to choose favorable grounds? ...

And then you find yourself bypassed, because the enemy can easily identify the few "favourable grounds" that suit long-range ATGMs & go round them. In Malaysia, I think such "favourable grounds" are probably very rare.