Yes, we are.
Strongly disagree with you on this. If anything we have been under-investing in our national defence capabilities.
Any reason to make you think this is not the case for Malaysia?
Malaysian Army/Land forces discussions
- Thread starter weasel1962
- Start date
As Malaysia's economy develops, it is only natural that it's military improves over time. Each country needs to prioritize its defence spending in accordance with its own needs.
IMHO DavidDCM is only partially correct in his analysis and would like to add to the discussion with my point of view (POV).
1. The point is not to compete with Singapore in the technological rat race (i.e. do not compete on your weakness)
2. The military value of Malaysia's purchase of PT-91M should be measured by its ability to enable the army to develop it's tank doctrine. Let my use 2 other sub-points to explain my POV:
(i) Despite the limitations of PT-91M listed in this forum and elsewhere, it is still a MBT. Numbers purchased may be small, but the value the army will derive from it will be huge. Once you have a MBT and you can plan modern armour ops. This also means you can also more effectively plan against MBT Ops against your forces. Therefore the PT-91M provides ops flexibility for the Malaysian Army.
(ii) It also forces the other side to take its presence into consideration in the battlefield. The opponent cannot move without proper amour support and will make the opponent's range of tactical responses more predictable.
3. This means that the opponent has to spend even more just to take this into account. It you look at SAF's website, you will find that they are considering combined armour "swarming attacks" and even "thunder runs" to further develop their amour doctrine. For more details see: www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/publications/pointer/supplements/LDAC.html
For the reasons above, the purchase of the PT-91M is worth it's weight in gold.
although i agreed that PT-91M is worth of value, but i still interested in knowing ur answer to the criticism u missed. Some ppl claimed offers by other the tenders, the Russian T-90C and Ukrainian T-84(Some said was an upgraded T-80UD) were superior in terms of capacity. Although PT-91 won the trial with the advantage of a German source transmission pack. Despite they all three offered offset package, MA chose the polish tank because the polish provided an interesting tech transfer proposal (which is the key of the Malaysian military procurement) and it has the cheapest price tag. Ppl who criticized this decision claimed that with limited budget, it is stupid to save tiny mini money and bought a rotten apple. We should had push our efforiblity for the best even it would had cost a lot more. What do you think?
Dear qwerty223, IMHO, in terms of the listed technical specifications it is possible to argue that the Russian T-90C and Ukrainian T-84 are superior, but without actually participating in the trials any discussion here is speculative.
Having said that, I set out the 3 reasons why I think the the PT-91 M was selected over the other two tanks below:
1. Better Mobility in the tropics (which are important characteristics in any tank operating)
1.1 German Renk power pack (1000 HP engine),
1.2 SESM Renk ESM350M driving system and German caterpillar tracks
2. Superior Crew Comfort for the tropics
2.1 The driver section has a steering-wheel instead drag-link (for the T-72 family tank) -
2.2 Air-condition system (without which the crew would have to drive with the hatches open due to heat) and chemical protection and detection system
3. PT-91 M's integrated total solution to meet Malaysia's needs
3.1 As mentioned in my previous post, Malaysia lacks the defence science organization to integrate custom solutions or upgrade their tanks (including ERA, a new communications system and a laser-warning system)
3.2 It is packaged to address Singapore's force structure (I'll explain further in another post)
Last edited:
IMHO, the Malaysian MBTs are likely to operate at tank PL or Mech Coy (i.e. 1 tank platoon plus Armoured infantry) sizes. If the opponent is going to be Singapore, any tank concentration of Bn level and above will present a good target for CAS or arty fire. It there is any tank concentration, their life span would be measured in minutes (given Singapore's superior artillery and air force).
To discuss this further, it is necessary to understand the potential opponent, who I assume will be the Singapore army. I set out some brief facts on the Singapore's infantry force structure below:
(i) Each infantry section is equipped with Matadors
(ii) Each infantry coy has a 84MM RR section
(iii) Each infantry Bn has a Spike-LR platoon
Therefore, the ERA is to help the PT-91 survive against defensive fire by (i) and (ii) listed above.
IMHO the armour of all 3 eastern designed tanks (Polish, Soviet and Ukrainian) cannot defend against a top-attack anti-tank guided missile (so why not buy the cheapest MBT). The eastern designed MBT must rely on speed and early detection of the anti-tank threat (hence speed & the tailoring to Malaysia's needs is important).
That is why I don't think the PT-91s are going to engage in large scale MBT vs MBT battles (as such the criticism of its selection viz a viz Soviet and Ukrainian MBTs is not valid).
In a defense or delay battle, I would hide the PT-91s and then use them as a quick reaction force to support my infantry.
From my point of view, the effective employment of MBTs is more important, therefore the purchase of the PT-91M is worth it's weight in gold.
Last edited:
The T 90 is certainly superior in protection and firepower to the PT-91. its also a modification to the T 72 Hull, compared to the PT91 which is using a T72 hull. And the T 90 is not expensive, so it should have been a better choice for procurement. Did you take into account if the deal of the PT 91 might have had some corruption element to it?
In any analysis of deals involving Malaysia, corruption could always be an element. However, I have no evidence of such and have not proceeded on the assumption of corruption.
In my 2 posts above, I have given my reasons why I think PT 91 is a good choice for Malaysia (for the mission on hand) and do not repeat those points here.
IMHO, the MBT is to be used against infantry, the BX IFV or the Terrex. I would like to part with 2 points, as follows:
(i) Spike LR can penetrate all 3 types of tank.
(ii) The frontal amour of all 3 types of tank should be good enough against Matadors and 84MM RRs (save for a mobility or optical kill)
I hope you have found my analysis well reasoned and sound.
BTW, I am from Singapore.
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #491
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
I agree with Chino in that the PT91 still carries a big whopping gun and I think it is sufficient for its purpose.
I also take note of weasel's concerns for the MAF on the issue of single source sourcing. Despite a past report of MAF's inability to conduct a Bde Level due to vehicle maintenance issues in the 1990s, I understand that this weakness has been addressed. IMHO the Malaysian Army is more than capable of keeping the PT-91M operational for its life-cycle.
In general, I really quite enjoy the discussions on the MAF.
I note that there are a number of non-military background forum members who are able to successfully discuss strategy, tactics and employment of tanks and troops. I also see that a number of senior forum members have taken the trouble to educate the non-military background forum members on strategy and tactics.
I also take note of weasel's concerns for the MAF on the issue of single source sourcing. Despite a past report of MAF's inability to conduct a Bde Level due to vehicle maintenance issues in the 1990s, I understand that this weakness has been addressed. IMHO the Malaysian Army is more than capable of keeping the PT-91M operational for its life-cycle.
In general, I really quite enjoy the discussions on the MAF.
I note that there are a number of non-military background forum members who are able to successfully discuss strategy, tactics and employment of tanks and troops. I also see that a number of senior forum members have taken the trouble to educate the non-military background forum members on strategy and tactics.
Last edited:
In Arab/Israeli wars' larger battles, an IDF tank unit can have up to 50% vehicle loss rate in a SINGLE DAY's combat. Though a high percentage were retrieved, repaired and returned to service after a matter of days, there will inevitably be those that are completely written off.
And because each unit has spare vehicles, crew members that survived often reform on a ad hoc basis to crew these spares and go right back into the fray.
The PT91 being the correct choice (or not) is one thing. Malaysia's very "a la carte" way of buying equipment - a few of these... a few of those - will have to go.
The 48 PT91's may just be enough for the Thai border.
Dear Chino and weasel, you are both correct. "Malaysia's very "a la carte" way of buying equipment - a few of these... a few of those" will make it very difficult for the military to keep their equipment operational.
IMHO the future threat to both Singapore and Malaysia may come from outside. For example, if we have a failed state (like Somalia or Afghanistan), there will people who will want to take advantage of that.
I know I'm a little off track here - it is the common interest of Singapore and Malaysia to keep our SLOC open.
As CM07 said "there's nothing physical that Malaysia needs to grab from Singapore and vice versa." At this stage of Singapore and Malaysia's economic development, we have much in common. Its a pity there is so much talk of SAF's forward defence. This leads to a public perception that our countries are adversaries, which then prevents the SAF and MAF from preparing and planning against an external threat.
Recently, 3 Malaysian ships were hijacked near Somalia. It is entirely possible that both Singapore and Malaysian ships could be are hijacked together. At that time, I wonder if we can act together?
With that off my chest, let's go back to looking at the Malaysian Army.
IMHO the future threat to both Singapore and Malaysia may come from outside. For example, if we have a failed state (like Somalia or Afghanistan), there will people who will want to take advantage of that.
I know I'm a little off track here - it is the common interest of Singapore and Malaysia to keep our SLOC open.
As CM07 said "there's nothing physical that Malaysia needs to grab from Singapore and vice versa." At this stage of Singapore and Malaysia's economic development, we have much in common. Its a pity there is so much talk of SAF's forward defence. This leads to a public perception that our countries are adversaries, which then prevents the SAF and MAF from preparing and planning against an external threat.
Recently, 3 Malaysian ships were hijacked near Somalia. It is entirely possible that both Singapore and Malaysian ships could be are hijacked together. At that time, I wonder if we can act together?
With that off my chest, let's go back to looking at the Malaysian Army.
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #495
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Allow a slight deviation from me also:
Many people think that SAF "Forward Defense" policy regarding Peninsula Malaysia is a policy based on politics - i.e. it is anti-Malaysia etc.
Not so.
IMO it is a policy based on unalterable geographical fact that: Peninsula Malaysia is our back door. Forward Defense is to guard that door irregardless who's on the other side.
The enemy that comes through that door may not even be Malaysian. The last time they were Japanese.
weasel1962
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #497
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Dear weasel1962 & Chino, thanks for your comments.
To continue our discussion on which weapons to modernize, let's take a look at MAF's current artillery equipment, followed by news about new purchases.
The Rejimen Artileri DiRaja (Royal Artillery Regiment) is equipped with Field Artillery pieces, Multiple Launched Rocket Launchers, Anti Aircraft Artillery and Air Defence Missiles. Presently the inventory of Rejimen Artileri DiRaja includes (this list is from Wikki):
18 X KERIS (ASTROS II) 300MM MLRS
28 X DENEL G5 MK 3 155 MM HOWITZER
15 X VSEL FH 70 155 MM HOWITZER
18 X SAKTI 105MM LIGHT GUN
200 X OTO MELARA 105 MM PACK HOWITZER
15 FCU Skyguard Radar Systems
Arthur Artillery tracking radar
[NB. I have left out the anti-aircraft bits, to keep the discussion simple, unless you guys are interested in further developing the area. I'm kind of reluctant to discuss anti-aircraft as I believe it can easily degenerate into a pissing contest]
To continue our discussion on which weapons to modernize, let's take a look at MAF's current artillery equipment, followed by news about new purchases.
The Rejimen Artileri DiRaja (Royal Artillery Regiment) is equipped with Field Artillery pieces, Multiple Launched Rocket Launchers, Anti Aircraft Artillery and Air Defence Missiles. Presently the inventory of Rejimen Artileri DiRaja includes (this list is from Wikki):
18 X KERIS (ASTROS II) 300MM MLRS
28 X DENEL G5 MK 3 155 MM HOWITZER
15 X VSEL FH 70 155 MM HOWITZER
18 X SAKTI 105MM LIGHT GUN
200 X OTO MELARA 105 MM PACK HOWITZER
15 FCU Skyguard Radar Systems
Arthur Artillery tracking radar
[NB. I have left out the anti-aircraft bits, to keep the discussion simple, unless you guys are interested in further developing the area. I'm kind of reluctant to discuss anti-aircraft as I believe it can easily degenerate into a pissing contest]
Dear All, please feel free to help update if any equipment was missed, thereafter discuss which are obsolete and which should be the next priority upgrade.
Last edited:
Wow, are these numbers accurate?
Not that I know anything about artillery, but I have to say they seem quite well supplied in this department.
When they first announced that they were getting Astros MLRS, I felt it was both a brilliant move and a bold statement at the same time. Definitely one of their more clever purchases that had us scratching our heads for a while on a suitable response.
I do question the great number of 105mm pieces. Does this preponderance of 105mm over other types show they know something we don't? I don't know how many 105mm pieces we have but I have the impression our eggs are mostly in the 155mm basket.
Anyone with numbers for comparison as well as opinions on 105 vs 155? Apart from the obvious "one has a bigger bang and range" argument, of course. Due to terrain etc of Malaysia or MAF, 105 may make more sense etc?
The pack howitzers are far more mobile, in particular in the jungle. If necessary, you can even use transport animals to move these in disassembled form (Germany used to do that with the same OTO M56 until the mid-90s), or in theory move them on your soldiers' backs. You can't really do the same with a towed 155mm cannon, or a self-propelled unit.