Malaysian Army/Land forces discussions

[Chino]

The idea that tropical countries with jungles are not suitable for MBTs is a big and popular misconception.

This is despite the fact that many tropical countries operate MBTs for a long time. In this region - Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam etc. When you go to S America, the same situation.

Are they/we all wrong?

(Firstly, I am not proposing to drive anything much less a MBT INSIDE a jungle proper. But am merely postulating that tropical landscape is not closed to MBT ops.)

Most MBTs actually exert less ground pressure per sq inch than a light tank so the soft ground argument is rubbish. In fact I would argue that tanks were invented to precisely to deal with mud. A truck, wheel AFV or even a light tank would be stuck in mud where a MBT would have no problem.

And the width of a MBT is not that much more than a light or medium tank so the other argument about narrow plantation road is also not believable. Some trucks that go into plantations to collect produce are as big/wide as an average MBT.

Then the next myth is bridges in SE Asia not being able to take the weight of MBT but a light tank will do well.

(As if they had good bridges all over the Middle East etc?)

The US Department of the Army book "Mounted Combat in Vietnam" is a recommended read. Its title is self-explanatory and the author took great pains to praise the success of tank ops in Vietnam jungles.

(Read the entire book here for free: http://www.history.army.mil/books/Vietnam/mounted/index.htm

The interesting thing about bridges is that in Vietnam rural countryside, there were vitually no bridges that can take even the weight of the M113.

So when it came to bridges in VN it was not a question of "light tank can, MBT cannot". Mostly, there were simply no armour-friendly bridges in the rural countryside where the enemy operated.

The solution was to have good terrain intel of your AO so you know where to go and where not to go, and what are the alternative routes. And then have good combat engineer support and improvise techniques when these are not available. And the rainy season was not a problem as most AFVs had to operate in flooded padi-fields, whatever the season.

And, of course, don't forget MBTs can snorkel to cross water obstacles.

The Ozzie's heavily-armoured Centurions proved very useful compared to lightly armoured AFVs in the jungles of Vietnam.

...

In urban situations, the IDF experience points towards not only using heavily-armoured MBTs, but to have IFV/APC also based on heavily-armoured MBT chassis.

Finally, it was also implied that a "blitzkreig" in Malaysia is unthinkable. IMO, that's exactly what the Japs achieved in WW2. If they had better tanks, the already short fight would have been even shorter.

...

Actually I will answer the question on "48 MBTs" not being enough.

Well, you have to start somewhere...

The reason MAF doesn't have a large fleet now doesn't mean they cannot grow the numbers later on. You can't buy 500 MBTs straightaway when initially you do not even have trained crews etc for 10 MBTs. Takes time to develop familiarity and the logistical support for a brand new class of weapon (for MAF).

Finally, no, I do not agree that having MBT in MAF is wrong, or that the Twardy is a complete disaster. It is not great, I give you that, but as DavidDCM said, it would kick ass with anything the Thais or Indonesians can throw at Malaysia.

So with all due respect I am not defending the choice of Twardy, but just mentioning the redeemable points.

MAF used palm oil to pay for the Twardy - can't complain about the price, can you?

 

[qwerty223]

Don't forget that by the time Malaysia decided to purchase the tank, it's most sophisticated possible opponent would have been the Thai M60A3. Only recently did Singapore buy the Leopard 2, which in the A4 version is not really superior to the PT.

But it can't really be defied that the purchase of a tank (whatever type) looks to a certain extent more like a prestige project than like something really needed and vital for the country's defence.

I've recently read somewhere that the southern peninsular Malaysia (where the PT-91M are based) is not that much "thick jungle"-terrain as one might expect, but a pretty open landscape quite suitable for mechanized tank warfare. I've never been there, but can someone confirm this?

And finally, the PT has not much to do anymore with the cheap mass tank T-72. It still has a couple of flaws that can barely be eliminated, like the ever cited open ammo carousel, the overall crammed crew compartment and the limited performance of the maingun. But its FCS is pretty much on par with the Leopard 2A4 and way superior to anything else in the region. On the same note the Leo 2 is the only ground vehicle there that one would assume to reliably defeat the PT's frontal armour. So especially in the Southeast-Asian context should the PT not be viewed as a cheap mass tank but on the contrary as a pretty high-class vehicle that only few can match with.

Well I can try to answer ur question. The peninsular has flat terrain at the edge and mount + thick forest at the middle. The so called "forest is a problem" is based on a WW2 memory. That assume the enemy intrude from the northern peninsular aka east cost and they will have a hard time crossing the middle mount + forest if they were to attack main cities on the west coast. Vice versa, the defender will face the same difficulty. But 50 years after of independent, it is a pride to say we have one of the most well established highway systems, this "difficulty" no longer exist.

To the one that has no sense in anything and everything, I want to clarify why is the lucky number 48. Having a tank is not as easy as an individual having a car. Tank needs skilled crews to activate its capability. Some idiots in the tank can only run the tank around earning public wow but can do nothing in warfare. At basic regiment is a good way to train skill tankers and pave the path for future expansion.

LOL, Chino beat me.

 

[eckherl]

The effect is psychological more than anything. A Merkava, an Abrams or even a Leo 2 has that much more presence and assurance than a lightweight Polish Up engined (coz that's what they did) T72.

The T72 is not without it's virtue. In those great land battles the Russians envisaged and indeed experienced; The T72 was designed purely for speed and to be massed in numbers.

In your honest opinion; do you actually think 48 T72s will make that much of a difference? I thought so. No need to reply.

What the MAF should have done, was read a book on Tank warfare. They would have realised that the Defence Ministry boys were obviously spunking themselves silly over a Tank that has no or even almost nil relevance on Malaysian geography.

Indeed the f**kers weight 40 - 42 tons. That's still a lot of weight. WHy not just buy something bigger and better??? WHere was the logic on buying a tank design specifically meant to be deployed in numbers??? And I don't mean 48 T72s, I mean at least a block of 500.

Or why not buy Apache Gunships instead?? Or more Arty??? Why buy an irrelevance??? Obviously the creature would suit the Indian Army and Russian groundforces, but for Malaysia???

Shit, i still think they should have bought a few hundred hueys.

And do I think the T72 is an affordable solution??? If i based everything on costs, I would have armed the MAF with just AK47s or even better WW2 Stenguns.

I suspect the Defence Ministry is just experimenting. But what a waste of Taxpayers money to be running experiments.

It would have been cheaper for them to visit the library.

Hell, even the Polish are phasing these tanks out. You can call it a Twardy; a bardy or even My PArty; but it's still a T72.

Let's look at what WIKI has to say;

PT-91M Pendekar
(M for Malaysia) — production export variant for Malaysia with SAGEM Savan-15[1] fire control system, 1,000-hp S-1000R engine (variant with new, hydropneumatic transmission) bringing its top speed to 70 km/h, and a new communications system. Weapons have been changed to a Konstrukta 2A46MS 125mm gun, a 7.62mm FN MAG coaxial machine gun and a 12.7mm FN Browning M2 HB AA machine gun. This variant is also equipped with Sagem VIGY 15 gyro-stabilised panoramic sight optronics, a Sigma 30 laser gyro navigation system, a PCO SSP-1 Obra-3 laser-warning system, Wegmann 76mm grenade launchers and Type 570P Diehl Remscheid GmbH tracks [2]. Two prototypes made (renamed PT-91E and PT-91Ex), 48 serial PT-91M vehicles are now in production.

Pendekar????? More like Pendekar Burut.

Poland will not be phasing all of them out, they are currently testing a upgrade package called PT-91 EX. Poland does not currently have plans to add additional LEO 2s and it is their desire to keep a sizeable armored force structure in place.

 

[cm07]

Agree with Chino.

To add, 48 Pendekar is about a Bn's strength. Add in Adnans and you will get a modern armoured brigade. In our region, an additional armoured (in compared to all previously mechanised "type") brigade, this is a huge increase in combat capability. They are obviously -not- an irrelevance. Infact, they have just become an iron fist that has to be taken into great consideration against aggressor ops in west Malaysia.

Purchasing a few hundred hueys for air assault? You will take 6 years minimum to get enough good men to fly each of those helicopters. Not to mention spares and servicing. If you want Airborne, get proper transport aircraft such as the 4 A400ms that has been ordered.

 

[kotay]

Purchasing a few hundred hueys for air assault? You will take 6 years minimum to get enough good men to fly each of those helicopters. Not to mention spares and servicing.

Not to mention that they will be close to useless if you don't achieve a modicum measure of air superiority or if the OPFOR has a good spread of SHORAAD/MANPADs.

 

[kotay]

But it can't really be defied that the purchase of a tank (whatever type) looks to a certain extent more like a prestige project than like something really needed and vital for the country's defence.

THe influence of some horses in the selection process doesn't help the credibility of the PT-91M either.

I've recently read somewhere that the southern peninsular Malaysia (where the PT-91M are based) is not that much "thick jungle"-terrain as one might expect, but a pretty open landscape quite suitable for mechanized tank warfare. I've never been there, but can someone confirm this?

Just to add to what qwerty posted ... Peninsular Malaysia is sort of divided along the north-south axis by a small ridge of mountains covered with virgin jungle.

The Western portion is very much settled, industrialised and flat-ish. You can trace a good road network at least 50km wide along the whole west coast.

The Eastern portion used to be a lot more thickly vegetated. Since the 50's, however, much of the thick jungle has been replaced by civilized plantations. It is now a lot more agrarian. While you may not have the extensive sealed road netwrok of the western seaboard, there is still a pretty decent network of "fire trails" cutting through the whole bit. There is also a narrow, contiguous narrow strip of sealed coastal roads running the whole length of the East coast.

Not ideal tank maneuver country but good enough for limited applications of an amoured fist.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

Actually I will answer the question on "48 MBTs" not being enough.

Well, you have to start somewhere...

The reason MAF doesn't have a large fleet now doesn't mean they cannot grow the numbers later on. You can't buy 500 MBTs straightaway when initially you do not even have trained crews etc for 10 MBTs. Takes time to develop familiarity and the logistical support for a brand new class of weapon (for MAF).

Finally, no, I do not agree that having MBT in MAF is wrong, or that the Twardy is a complete disaster. It is not great, I give you that, but as DavidDCM said, it would kick ass with anything the Thais or Indonesians can throw at Malaysia.

Yes, unfortunately we start with the T72. I've got a boulder the size of Singapore about this purchase. On top of it; the window dressing chaps decided to rename it "Pendekar".

Neither do I disagree that MBTs should have not been bought, but if we're going to start somewhere; let it be at a level where the study of armour is learned. Hell, we could have bought second hand M60A3s from the US for further familiarisation.

And as for the T72 kicking ass. nfloorl: I must say that anyone here saying that was a good purchase is: A) Quite sarcastic - tongue in cheek B) An Optimist.

If you look at the composition of the region's armour, Singapore has M48s, Chieftains and now Leo 2s. And they have had armour for quite sometime and longer than Malaysia in this case.

So with all due respect I am not defending the choice of Twardy, but just mentioning the redeemable points.

At least you appreciate the value. The total package was some US 300 -400million if I am right. It's not bad but an Abrams or a Leo 2 are going for US 4 or 10 million a piece. So where is the real value over a period of 10 years??

In motoring terms; the MAF have just bought themselves Skodas from the good old Soviet bloc. Doesn't matter if you retro fit these with new parts; a skoda is still a skoda.

Well, I guess if you're someone who appreciates a Proton; you may like a skoda.

But for the real building up of the MBT armoured brigades in the MAF. Cheap and Cheerful is not the way unless you intend to have plenty of them.

But in Bolehland everything is possible; a three legged donkey can be made to look like a thoroughbred stallion.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

Purchasing a few hundred hueys for air assault? You will take 6 years minimum to get enough good men to fly each of those helicopters. Not to mention spares and servicing. If you want Airborne, get proper transport aircraft such as the 4 A400ms that has been ordered.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I am not afraid to admit I like the Airborne concept. And for Malaysia; that would quadruple our combat capability. A mixture of several hundred hueys and cobras would have been just fine, and heck By Hang Tuah's janggut - 6 years is nothing compared to the benefits accrued!

And forget about parachuting!!!!! Parachute where???!!! For that you'll need Assured Air Superiority which is something the MAF does not have. Even then, it shouldn't even be considered.

48 T72s

If we intend to adopt new conventional tactics and strategies in our defence policy; then we start somewhere sensible; somewhere comparative - it would have been better to purchase 48 Abrams or 48 Leo 2s or even 48 M60A3s. That would have been the commendable option.

 

[Chino]

And as for the T72 kicking ass. nfloorl: I must say that anyone here saying that was a good purchase is: A) Quite sarcastic - tongue in cheek B) An Optimist.

More correctly, I'm being practical. Yes, you have a bunch of people making erratic and irrational equipment procurement for the long-suffering MAF all the time, we all understand this.

All I am saying is that the PT-91 works, so make the best of it. If IDF can make the WW2 Sherman work up till 1970s, a PT-91 should be fine for a while. Which tank is important but crew training make the ultimate difference as the IDF experience also showed.

If you look at the composition of the region's armour, Singapore has M48s, Chieftains and now Leo 2s. And they have had armour for quite sometime and longer than Malaysia in this case.

Correction. We have cute little AMX-13s, Centurions and Leo 2s.

The total package was some US 300 -400million if I am right.

Curious, how much hard cash was actually paid for the PT-91 and how much in barter?

In motoring terms; the MAF have just bought themselves Skodas from the good old Soviet bloc. Doesn't matter if you retro fit these with new parts; a skoda is still a skoda.

Well, at least it is a brand new Skoda. I rode in a Skoda taxi in Singapore recently and it pretty decent...

 

[cm07]

I cant believe that concept of you sending in enmassed helis in an airborne assault without air superiority either.

Sensors might miss out 1 low flying plane in the clutter.

50 helis will make so bright a spot any enemy with decent arty networked would try to lob a shells in your path with air burst munitions. Manpads and Shorads aside, concentrated AP GPMG fire will be of concern as well.

Singapore doesnt have M48s or chieftans but has a few M60s as engineer tanks with a demolition gun.

Purchase of Abrams, L2s or M60s will involve US in the context somewhere - something which i'm rather positive was something meant to be avoided on purpose.

Frankly, anything if used properly will be of great effectiveness. 48 Pt-91s with adnans with a few modern SHORADs for defence against AHs and PGMs are a great counter attacking force. Dont look down on Armour. If they are that ineffective, no one would be developing newer breeds all the time.

 

[swerve]

...Well, at least it is a brand new Skoda. I rode in a Skoda taxi in Singapore recently and it pretty decent...

Skoda has been owned by Volkswagen since the 1990s.

 

[kotay]

... and the Skoda Octavia is essentially a VW Golf while the Skoda Superb is basically a VW Passat.

Go visit a Skoda dealer and they'll proudly tell you that their cars use Audi/VW branded consumables.

So if the PT-91M is a Skoda, it ain't half bad really. Means it's got German pedigree/know-how in it

[edit]

You may have wanted to use the Trabant as an example instead

 

[DavidDCM]

48 T72s

If we intend to adopt new conventional tactics and strategies in our defence policy; then we start somewhere sensible; somewhere comparative - it would have been better to purchase 48 Abrams or 48 Leo 2s or even 48 M60A3s. That would have been the commendable option.

Leopard 2? Yes, if they bought used ones from the stocks, like Singapore. That would be a deal I would regard as slightly better than the PT-deal, but not without concern due to the limited possibility of buying more tanks in the future.

Abrams? They would have to buy new ones and that would boost the costs multiple times. Same goes for newly produced Leopard 2. If you talk about waste of money this would be the way to go.

M60A3? What the heck? It's way inferior to the PT in virtually every aspect. Okay, it's cheaper. But than Malaysia would buy a tank that is in service with it's neighbour since decades and offers no real advantage over anything in the region. That would be pretty stupid.

Seriously, the PT is a fine tank for Southeastasia. Please tell exactly why you regard the PT as inferior?

 

[Chino]

Well even for someone like me with zero technical knowledge, the PT-91... quite simply, has a bigger gun than the M60A3. So how can the M60A3 ever be as good or better than the PT-91?

 

[Mr Ignorant]

Gentlemen, the issue is mine and mine alone for posting that remark about the T72 Polish Twardy. And for that I do expect to be spoken too with some concern. Just today someone said something in a meeting I attended this afternoon.

Generally, what we suppose to be accurate, the methodology we use to determine how accurate the data is, is compromised by the fact that the statistics would only bear out the data on the general population; rather than the information produced by the specific groups we see............we use narratives in our assessments to determine the real value of the of X but all the other scientific tests will only give out +2 either side of the given mark but not the real mark itself........


Now that was quite a mouthful. David DCM, Chino and me have been using narratives to justify what we perceive to be accurate. But is what we say really accurate?

I say the Twardy is a Tank design compromised by it's historical performance against M1A2 Abrams. My forummers here disagree and say that based on purely technical specs that they can only so far gather; the comparison on paper suggests that the Twardy is infinitely better than a M60A3 but neither conclude that it would represent a better investment in value in comparison to a Leo 2 or Abrams purchase. Both agree that those Tanks mentioned are more pricey than the T72.

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.

But if this is an experimental approach by the MAF - Then I can only surmise that this Tank is solely for training and possible COIN deployments. The effect in the latter would be more psychological than anything else. If this was the underlying intention, then why couldn't the defence boys select something 2nd hand like the M60A3?

Otherwise it is a White Elephant and not the sleek Leopard/Panther or Puma we all want to see in the MAF.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

Frankly, anything if used properly will be of great effectiveness. 48 Pt-91s with adnans with a few modern SHORADs for defence against AHs and PGMs are a great counter attacking force. Dont look down on Armour. If they are that ineffective, no one would be developing newer breeds all the time.[/quote]

So you're suggesting that training and tactics is the real issue? So if you were issued a T34 or M47 Patton; you and your crew would still beat any modern MBT in the battlefield? What are you saying really?

Not too sure what you're elaborating here - so very hypothetical. Modern conventional warfare is simply about more of everything thrown in stages and agreed timelines on various places; that makes the theatre we read and talk about War. The politics is a la Clausewitz always but hey; we're not here to discuss philosophy so I can't comment on what you've outlined in that scenario, unbelievable or otherwise.

Whether you throw in 1 armoured division against another is moving away from the main point above. I can say with certainty that what you appear to understand is just inaccuracies piled on top of one another. And reporting back those inaccuracies is knowing what is wrong with the main issue.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

The idea that tropical countries with jungles are not suitable for MBTs is a big and popular misconception.

This is despite the fact that many tropical countries operate MBTs for a long time. In this region - Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam etc. When you go to S America, the same situation.

Are they/we all wrong?

(Firstly, I am not proposing to drive anything much less a MBT INSIDE a jungle proper. But am merely postulating that tropical landscape is not closed to MBT ops.)

I agree with what you say; History does bear this out somewhat but most if not all what took place in WW2 on Malaya still has some relevance till today. The terrain should also be considered and the Malayan terrain is much given to defence rather than offence (seeing that all we share in our borders is a bare strip of soil either side of the Thai-M'Sia Isthmus; and a coast in the South.)

Anyway, the lessons I learned about the Japanese invasion was the success of their mobility and the local support they had amongst the population (with the exception of the Chinese; in which there was much butchery in Singapore, something Lee Kuan Yew himself and many others can attest to this day).

I am not saying the MBT does not have a role; it does on Malayan terrain but a fairly limited one compared to Tank battles we all read about. We can't compare what we learned against what we do not know about Tanks on the Malayan peninsula.

 

[qwerty223]

Hmm... I wonder how bad was the T-72 in its age? I doubt the Leo and Abram can do better under fire by DU rounds from airborne assault platforms.

I think this Mr don't even have a clue how a tank works.

 

[Chino]

The terrain should also be considered and the Malayan terrain is much given to defence rather than offence (seeing that all we share in our borders is a bare strip of soil either side of the Thai-M'Sia Isthmus; and a coast in the South.)

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

I am not saying the MBT does not have a role; it does on Malayan terrain but a fairly limited one compared to Tank battles we all read about. We can't compare what we learned against what we do not know about Tanks on the Malayan peninsula.

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

 

[qwerty223]

I guess his knowledge stop at the Middle East tank war at the 70s. Where tanks crash together in mass numbers. But let me wonder, the contemporary Vietnam war doesn't give him any enlightment at all?