Malaysian Army/Land forces discussions

[Chino]

No, seriously, what warrants the need to have A109 Attack choppers?? I am fairly familiar with Malaysian Terrain, and whilst it is a novelty, I can't help but thinking the role and nature of attack helicopters is somewhat skewered ....

I think you sort of drifted off course.

I think those SU30 Flankers are a real good buy. If you keep buying enough of them, you will really become a regional power to be reckoned with and make us Singaporeans stop acting so co.cky.

Being multi-role fighter/attack aircrafts, SU30 can defend themselves against air challenge while on the way to or from a ground attack.

 

[Tavarisch]

Calling them Wankers instead of Flankers just shows how serious you are when you made that statement.... nfloorl:

 

[Mr Ignorant]

I think you sort of drifted off course.

I think those SU30 Flankers are a real good buy. If you keep buying enough of them, you will really become a regional power to be reckoned with and make us Singaporeans stop acting so co.cky.

Being multi-role fighter/attack aircrafts, SU30 can defend themselves against air challenge while on the way to or from a ground attack.

Aaaah Chino Heaven forbid that I would think to invade your country with my wankers nfloorl: No seriously, we'll just flood Singapore with more immigrants flankers, I mean wankers hahaha...okay, I am trying to be serious nfloorl:

I'll have you know that we take our w**king, I mean our Flankers very seriously. It's why we purchase those spunking brand new machines hahaha

 

[nevidimka]

Dhirzan, if you dont me asking, do you know which2 tanks were evaluated during the Army's trials? and why the Polish Pt 91 selected? How is this tank better than the latest version of Russian T 90?

 

[Dzirhan]

T-80 or T-90 I believe was the other tank, Deftech (then DRB-Hicom) was offering it in conjuction with a russian or ukranian company (been 8 years so memory fuzzy on it) and were pretty much certain they had it in the bag and they were pretty much caught out when it was announced at Defence Services Asia that the PT-91 was chosen. Not sure how the decision to select PT-91M was reached though it's been claimed that Mahathir himself made the decision after a visit to Poland. As for the comparison with T90, afraid I have no idea as not really a technical armour expert, probably someone else here has an idea, though I'll probably add that military equipment capability comparison is not the only thing for anything being selected, there are other factors e.g whether the equipment fits the terrain and doctrine of the country purchasing it, maintainance, support and logistics issue and of course cost.

 

[Chino]

T-80 or T-90 I believe was the other tank, Deftech (then DRB-Hicom) was offering it in conjuction with a russian or ukranian company (been 8 years so memory fuzzy on it) and were pretty much certain they had it in the bag and they were pretty much caught out when it was announced at Defence Services Asia that the PT-91 was chosen. Not sure how the decision to select PT-91M was reached though it's been claimed that Mahathir himself made the decision after a visit to Poland. As for the comparison with T90, afraid I have no idea as not really a technical armour expert, probably someone else here has an idea, though I'll probably add that military equipment capability comparison is not the only thing for anything being selected, there are other factors e.g whether the equipment fits the terrain and doctrine of the country purchasing it, maintainance, support and logistics issue and of course cost.

Could it be the attractive credit terms i.e. Poland was willing to accept commodities in lieu of cash as part of the payment?

Maybe it was also true when RSAF selected the upgraded F15 over the other 2 much more modern entries Rafael and Typhoon.

Among other reasons*, it could also be because RSAF wanted to maintain close ties with US as the main supplier. Could be this will ensure preferential treatment, training, use of facilities and top grade stuff being made available etc.

* There were other stated official reasons for the choice being made.

 

[Tavarisch]

Personally, I think the PT91M was a good choice. The T90S and T84 were better choices, however, it would be analogous to having a Mercedes when all you need is a Ford. By the way, does anybody know the loadout for the 2A46M for our PT91s? My guess would be the BM-42 APFSDS, BK-29 HEAT-FS and OF-26 HE-FRAG. (unsure of the ATGMs) Or did our Army order a different loadout? (BM-32 or older?)

I think the projected threats to our sovereignty is not valid. Indonesia has it's own internal problems, Singapore needs us as much as we need them, Philippines has MILF to deal with and Thailand also has a power struggle problem. Australia would be too far away to get to us, raising supply costs. New Zealand has too small of an Army and I don't think they really care about us, save for the coco powder that we export to them. The US is too bogged down in Afghanistan, and I don't think Obama really wants another war. (all threats that I can think of as of now.) But, I maybe wrong in any case.

However, as the saying goes in Malay, "Sediakan payung sebelum hujan." (Prepare an umbrella before it starts raining)

 

[DavidDCM]

Malaysian ammunition is made by Pretis from Bosnia Herzegovina.
APFSDS is either M88 or M04, the M88 is a copy of the BM15, the M04 is a local development.
HE-Frag is called M86, HEAT is also called M88.

€dit/ The vehicles tested by Malaysia before buying the PT-91 were: T-90, T-84 and CV-90120T

 

[Tavarisch]

Malaysian ammunition is made by Pretis from Bosnia Herzegovina.
APFSDS is either M88 or M04, the M88 is a copy of the BM15, the M04 is a local development.
HE-Frag is called M86, HEAT is also called M88.

Any specs on the M04? I haven't heard of that one before.

The BM-15 is pretty old. (1972) Is the M04 going to be any better? The BM-15 has only around 310mm of penetration at 2000m. I guess it'll be good enough to target SM1s and other light vehicles, but not the Leos.

I'll have to look into these Bosnian munitions.

EDIT: Just took a look at the M04 specs. Pretty promising. 580mm of RHA at 2000m. (Said to be DU)

 

[Dzirhan]

Malaysian ammunition is made by Pretis from Bosnia Herzegovina.
APFSDS is either M88 or M04, the M88 is a copy of the BM15, the M04 is a local development.
HE-Frag is called M86, HEAT is also called M88.

€dit/ The vehicles tested by Malaysia before buying the PT-91 were: T-90, T-84 and CV-90120T

Thanks for the correction David, showing my age it was narrowed down to two before the selection.
Chino, not sure really what prompted the final selection, as with Mahathir, anything was possible. The Russians and Ukranians were also willing to do the same on payments so that wans't an issue

 

[nevidimka]

T-80 or T-90 I believe was the other tank, Deftech (then DRB-Hicom) was offering it in conjuction with a russian or ukranian company (been 8 years so memory fuzzy on it) and were pretty much certain they had it in the bag and they were pretty much caught out when it was announced at Defence Services Asia that the PT-91 was chosen. Not sure how the decision to select PT-91M was reached though it's been claimed that Mahathir himself made the decision after a visit to Poland. As for the comparison with T90, afraid I have no idea as not really a technical armour expert, probably someone else here has an idea, though I'll probably add that military equipment capability comparison is not the only thing for anything being selected, there are other factors e.g whether the equipment fits the terrain and doctrine of the country purchasing it, maintainance, support and logistics issue and of course cost.

I think you know well, that the Pt 91 is based on the T 72 chassis just like the T 80 and T 90. But T 90 is better upgraded with its lower silhouette turret. It is also equipped with Kontact 5 ERA with APS. Somehow I think those tank crews will feel a lot safer in a tank protected by K5's than Erawa ERA's, not to mention the Relikt.
Since they both are based on the same chasis I also don't think it fared any different in terrain tests, or doctrine or maintenance. I believe the T 90 would have been a better choice.

 

[Tavarisch]

I think you know well, that the Pt 91 is based on the T 72 chassis just like the T 80 and T 90. But T 90 is better upgraded with its lower silhouette turret. It is also equipped with Kontact 5 ERA with APS. Somehow I think those tank crews will feel a lot safer in a tank protected by K5's than Erawa ERA's, not to mention the Relikt.
Since they both are based on the same chassis I also don't think it fared any different in terrain tests, or doctrine or maintenance. I believe the T 90 would have been a better choice.

Lower silhouette means cramped fighting compartments. It's a questionable advantage. However, the APS and the K5 are definitely positive addons.

It's a better choice indeed (The T90), however let's remember that equipping a whole brigade (my guess) with 1.3 million USD tanks wasn't what Mahathir had in mind, much more so since I've heard that he made the decision in 2002. However, 1.3 million USD for a tank is WAY too cheap for a tank in my opinion. (compared to M1A2s, which can cost anywhere from 2 million to 6.5 million USD. Depends on what kind of stuff you stick on it. No APS either, possibly except for the MCD)

 

[DavidDCM]

I think you know well, that the Pt 91 is based on the T 72 chassis just like the T 80 and T 90. But T 90 is better upgraded with its lower silhouette turret. It is also equipped with Kontact 5 ERA with APS. Somehow I think those tank crews will feel a lot safer in a tank protected by K5's than Erawa ERA's, not to mention the Relikt.
Since they both are based on the same chasis I also don't think it fared any different in terrain tests, or doctrine or maintenance. I believe the T 90 would have been a better choice.

The T-80 is not based on the T-72, it's an own design. The T-90 is based on the T-72B, thus offering better basic/passive protection than the PT-91, which is based on the T-72M, this combined with the Kontakt 5 offers a much higher protection against KE rounds. But it does not have a smaller silhoutte turret, the T-90 has the same height as the T-72 or the PT-91M, and it is also not more crammed.

 

[eckherl]

The T-80 is not based on the T-72, it's an own design. The T-90 is based on the T-72B, thus offering better basic/passive protection than the PT-91, which is based on the T-72M, this combined with the Kontakt 5 offers a much higher protection against KE rounds. But it does not have a smaller silhoutte turret, the T-90 has the same height as the T-72 or the PT-91M, and it is also not more crammed.

Hi David,

A T-72B designation is based on T-72 turret configuration, are you sure that this would apply to newer T-90 series starting with the T-90M.

 

[Tavarisch]

Hi David,

A T-72B designation is based on T-72 turret configuration, are you sure that this would apply to newer T-90 series starting with the T-90M.

Well, some sources state that the T90 is essentially an upgraded T-72BM. So I think David may be correct in that regard.

However, as always I can be wrong.

 

[eckherl]

Well, some sources state that the T90 is essentially an upgraded T-72BM. So I think David may be correct in that regard.

However, as always I can be wrong.

Starting with the T-90M series the turret is not a good comparision to a T-72B or any other T-72 series for that matter, think about why.

 

[DavidDCM]

@eckherl: I don't think that today's production T-90's still have the T-72B armor array. They surely upgraded it, especially with the welded turret of late versions.

But I made my statement to point out that the PT-91M has a weaker protection level than the T-90 (even if both of them would be equipped with Kontakt 5), which can ultimately be attributed to the basic difference between the T-72M1 and the T-72B.

 

[eckherl]

@eckherl: I don't think that today's production T-90's still have the T-72B armor array. They surely upgraded it, especially with the welded turret of late versions.

But I made my statement to point out that the PT-91M has a weaker protection level than the T-90 (even if both of them would be equipped with Kontakt 5), which can ultimately be attributed to the basic difference between the T-72M1 and the T-72B.

Agreed and Bingo, that is where I was going with my post, that being all T-90series starting with the M model turrets made after the year 2000 had a completely redesigned turret with the introduction of welding versus casting.

 

[nevidimka]

The T-80 is not based on the T-72, it's an own design. The T-90 is based on the T-72B, thus offering better basic/passive protection than the PT-91, which is based on the T-72M, this combined with the Kontakt 5 offers a much higher protection against KE rounds. But it does not have a smaller silhoutte turret, the T-90 has the same height as the T-72 or the PT-91M, and it is also not more crammed.

My mistake. Yes the T 80 is not based on the T 72, but IRC it is based on the T 62 tank, making it more expensive, as did the T 62. I remember reading that the T 90 said to be having a lower silhouette, maybe it was compared to Western types and not the T 72.
But like you said, even the basic armour is better than the Pt 91, not to mention ERA types.

 

[DavidDCM]

Not the T-62 but the T-64, but otherwise you are correct. The T-90 has a low silhouette only when being compared to Western tanks (see image below). Compared to other Russian tanks it's not really smaller.