Malaysian Army/Land forces discussions

[eckherl]

Another reason why the choice of Pt 91 is a very poor choice for Malaysia.

And I was reading another discussion on ERA's on another forum and it hit me. I think while the Kaktus seems to disappear with the Black Eagle, i believe we will see it again, with the T 95. I remember seeing sketches of proposed unmmaned turrent of T 95, and they have the Black Eagle style integrated kaktus ERA onto the Hull. As for Relikt, I think it is meant as an upgrade to T 72/90 tank that was using K5 ERA.

Also I found this interesting site on protection, but it is in Russian.

I'd like to show this diagram though. While it is in Russian, it is easily understandable. It shows the Protection level of different tanks, Nato and Russia. Also the Sabot rounds, belonging to NATO and Russia. Those in Blue indicate NATO, and those in RED indicate Russia.

With the use of welded construction on T-90 turrets you may just see Kaktus on future T-90 tanks, this could not be achieved on cast turrets due to Kaktus needing to be intergated into the main armor.

That little chart has been floating around now for quite some time, take it with a grain of salt.

Why is Twardy a bad choice, it is a capable vehicle in the hands of a well trained tank crew.

 

[nevidimka]

I got it from this site.

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translat...ion_btvt_2006.htm&lp=ru_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

Its a russian source. Certainly better than wiki.

I belive the diagram was made after test rounds on the T 80/90 tanks with russian and western rounds.

I understand that kaktus was designed so that it can be integrated into main armour, but I dont understand how cast turrets doesn't allow this and welded ones do. I doubt kaktus will make its appearence on T 90 though, coz it would mean investment on new design and testing, etc2, b4 the army buys it. I think the Army is going straight with T 95.

Regarding Pt 91, I heard that so many times, it is not funny. Sure it is a capable tank, but considering the gulf in protection level capable of both types, and how they cost almost the same, the smart choice would be the T 90, not the Pt 91.

 

[DavidDCM]

Another reason why the choice of Pt 91 is a very poor choice for Malaysia.

"Poor choice" is a bit hard, don't you think? Armor protection is just one of many aspects that determine the strength of a tank.
But you also have to consider economical, political and other reasons weighing in on the decision. Malaysia did not have much money at that time (still recovering from the 1997 crisis), and some sources indicate that Poland accepted a barter trade payment which Russia and Ukraine refused. So, if you have the choice between a 2nd line tank and no tank at all, what would you take?
And it's not like the PT-91M is a bad tank. When Malaysia went for the PT-91M, there was nothing that could stand up to it in the region. Singapore's AMX-13SM1 or Thailand's M60A3TTS would fare rather poorly against the PT-91M. The Leopard 2 deal came several years after the PT-91M deal, and saying that one tank was a poor choice because there exist better ones in the far wide world and some time later the much wealthier neighbor decides to buy one of them is not a valid argument in my eyes.

 

[eckherl]

I got it from this site.

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translat...ion_btvt_2006.htm&lp=ru_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

Its a russian source. Certainly better than wiki.

I belive the diagram was made after test rounds on the T 80/90 tanks with russian and western rounds.

I understand that kaktus was designed so that it can be integrated into main armour, but I dont understand how cast turrets doesn't allow this and welded ones do. I doubt kaktus will make its appearence on T 90 though, coz it would mean investment on new design and testing, etc2, b4 the army buys it. I think the Army is going straight with T 95.

Regarding Pt 91, I heard that so many times, it is not funny. Sure it is a capable tank, but considering the gulf in protection level capable of both types, and how they cost almost the same, the smart choice would be the T 90, not the Pt 91.

Think about what you can achieve with a welded turret versus one that is designed by a molded process, laminated and composite armor will perform better when placed on flat angled surfaces, ERA packages can be mounted with uniform protection meaning no gaps between the ERA tiles as a example. Why would using Kaktus call for a whole new turret design, do not get tunnel vision due to looking at vehicles such as Black Eagle, it is possible to implement Kaktus into a T-90 welded turret. You will not see the T-95 being massed produced anytime soon due to cost, Russia has their hands full getting enough T-90s into their inventory due to sales abroad, also what threat would warrant it, there is other priorities that need addressing first like naval and airforce needs which will play a bigger impact for Russia`s military muscle, I think that the T-95 is a red herring and we will never see it.

The deal inregards to the PT-91 was more than likely due to political reasons between both of those countries, also if I am not mistaken they have the ability to take on future upgrades from Poland also if they want them.

I do not even read articles from WIKI alot of it is bull butter, I have to ask you though do you honestly think that Russia got their hands on information inregards to M829A2 and A3 series rounds.

 

[Chino]

So, if you have the choice between a 2nd line tank and no tank at all, what would you take?
And it's not like the PT-91M is a bad tank. When Malaysia went for the PT-91M, there was nothing that could stand up to it in the region.

True. And a 120mm gun is a 120mm gun. At the time the decision was made, it was the most modern and heavily-armed tank in SE Asia.

And well-crewed, well-lead, will be a match for any other MBT you can find in this region including SAF Leopards.

...

But, to borrow from other forums, here are some counter-arguments that other people have come up with. I cannot prove or disprove them, I am merely quoting their POV here for discussion:

- The Leopard 2 - after upgrading - is still cheaper than the PT91.

- Poland, is converting/uses the Leopard 2 (in greater numbers than the PT91), which is why they were glad to fob off the PT91 on Malaysia on barter agreement.

 

[OPSSG]

True. And a 120mm gun is a 120mm gun. At the time the decision was made, it was the most modern and heavily-armed tank in SE Asia.

@ Chino,

Sorry, doesn't the PT-91M have a 125mm smoothbore gun (and not 120mm)? Must be a typo, right?

In support of your point about the PT-91M having killing power in closed terrain, it also comes with Sagem SAVAN-15 fire control system (and the Drawa FCS found on the PT-91). IIRC India is also upgrading their T-72M1s (also called the Ajeya Mk1 tanks) to the Ajeya Mk2 standard with some elements from PT-91, such as SKO-1T DRAWA-T FCS and PZL-Wola S-1000 engine.

And well-crewed, well-lead, will be a match for any other MBT you can find in this region...

@Chino and DavidDCM

I also agree leadership, training and other factors are important too. In this respect, I think the MAF is taking a page from the South Africa Army (SAA) and has chosen mobility over armour. I have tremendous respect for the professionals in the MAF (especially their jungle warfare skills).

In a Rand study called "In the Middle of the Fight" by Johnson et al. (2008), studying the effects of medium armoured forces (of which South Africa's Border War in Angola in 1975–1988 was a case), the study's authors concluded that world-class training received by the SAA provided a (perhaps the) decisive advantage over Angolan and Cuban forces.

At some stage, the SAA was operating in the absence of air superiority. The SAA medium-armor units were employed in much smaller dispersed packages. In fact, SAA medium-weight armored units operated at a significant disadvantage in terms of lethality and survivability when compared
to heavy opposition forces.

However, the SAA had superior intelligence and situational awareness, which was gained via their use of recce elements and UAVs. Further, the SAA fielded large, task-organized “combat groups” with a remarkable array of capabilities, including infantry, armor infantry (carried in armored IFVs & APCs), heavy armor (the SAA's upgraded MBT was developed and deployed too late for the conflict), mortars, tube artillery (indirect fires provided by the G-5 gave SAA lethality - which Malaysia also uses), rocket artillery (Malaysia has Astros II), special forces, electronic warfare, and logistics elements. These capabilities allowed the South Africans (and no reason why Malaysia cannot do the same) to achieve the survivability and lethality levels offered by combined-arms formations while remaining sustainable.

 

[DavidDCM]

@ Chino,

Sorry, doesn't the PT-91M have a 125mm smoothbore gun (and not 120mm)? Must be a typo, right?

In support of your point about the PT-91M having killing power in closed terrain, it also comes with the Drawa fire control system. IIRC India is also upgrading their T-72M1s (also called the Ajeya Mk1 tanks) to the Ajeya Mk2 standard with some elements from PT-91, such as SKO-1T DRAWA-T fire control system and PZL-Wola S-1000 engine.

Drawa-T is used by the original Polish PT-91, the Malaysian tanks use the French Sagem SAVAN-15 fire control system. Could be described as downgraded Leclerc FCS.

 

[Chino]

I have tremendous respect for the professionals in the MAF (especially their jungle warfare skills).

True.

Furthermore, the terrain itself is the biggest enemy. And if MAF can use the terrain familiarity to their advantage, an invader would have a very hard time.

 

[nevidimka]

"Poor choice" is a bit hard, don't you think? Armor protection is just one of many aspects that determine the strength of a tank.
But you also have to consider economical, political and other reasons weighing in on the decision. Malaysia did not have much money at that time (still recovering from the 1997 crisis), and some sources indicate that Poland accepted a barter trade payment which Russia and Ukraine refused. So, if you have the choice between a 2nd line tank and no tank at all, what would you take?
And it's not like the PT-91M is a bad tank. When Malaysia went for the PT-91M, there was nothing that could stand up to it in the region. Singapore's AMX-13SM1 or Thailand's M60A3TTS would fare rather poorly against the PT-91M. The Leopard 2 deal came several years after the PT-91M deal, and saying that one tank was a poor choice because there exist better ones in the far wide world and some time later the much wealthier neighbor decides to buy one of them is not a valid argument in my eyes.

IMO, I believe the Pt 91 is a poor choice. It is a poor upgrade version of the T 72 compared to the T 90. Sure the Pt 91 can do the job in this surrounding, but my point is the T 90 is a vastly better choice at similar price level, and I'm not even looking at regional acquisition after the Pt 91 was made. You mentioned that the Pt 91 can also use upgrades by Poland in future, but that is if Poland doesn't decide to scrap the Pt 91 and go all NATO, and then we would be left with a dead product with no future.

And some1 mentioned the Leapord A4 with upgrade being cheaper than the Pt 91. What is the prove of that? Maybe its because singapore bought second hand, which made it cheaper? but second hand products with high mileage, may not be a good decision when u have the money.

And finally its MA, not MAF, that would be the Air Force.

 

[Waylander]

The zeroed Leos are good for alot of more miles than they have on their tracks right now.

Surplus Leo2A4 can cost you everything from 1€-1.000.000€ depending on who you are.
1.000.000 for a tank which is still capable and has alot of room and access to possible upgrades is still cheap.

 

[Tavarisch]

That's pretty cheap for a Leo 2.

Malaysia isn't ready to take it to that step yet I'm afraid, what with all the political instability. I wish they could just pick a leader and get it done. I'm tired of reading about bickering politicians on the front-page of every newspaper. Why can't Malaysia have people like Putin and Reagan? They get the job done and silence bickering morons. (BN politicians included)

Anyway, good for Singapore. The Leo 2 is a formidable beast, even if it is second-hand. Who is producing munitions for the L/44s on these things?

 

[eckherl]

IMO, I believe the Pt 91 is a poor choice. It is a poor upgrade version of the T 72 compared to the T 90. Sure the Pt 91 can do the job in this surrounding, but my point is the T 90 is a vastly better choice at similar price level, and I'm not even looking at regional acquisition after the Pt 91 was made. You mentioned that the Pt 91 can also use upgrades by Poland in future, but that is if Poland doesn't decide to scrap the Pt 91 and go all NATO, and then we would be left with a dead product with no future.

And some1 mentioned the Leapord A4 with upgrade being cheaper than the Pt 91. What is the prove of that? Maybe its because singapore bought second hand, which made it cheaper? but second hand products with high mileage, may not be a good decision when u have the money.

And finally its MA, not MAF, that would be the Air Force.

I still do not understand why you and a few others on this thread feel that you need to discredit this tanks capabilities, you do not even know the composition of the ERA package, as David has pointed out the FCS is most top notch, Poland has decided not to use or upgrade their PT-91s, where is that coming from, they has already come out with an additional upgrade package for theirs with plans to keep this tank around, they have also decided not to take on additional Leos. Again, in the hands of a well trained unit given the type of terrian that it will be operating in this tank will prove its worth.

 

[Tavarisch]

You've got a point there. But, I still think the T90M would've been a better choice, given the price range for this tank and the T90M.

If you think the PT-91 would perform well, given the training and whatnot, what doesn't make tanks like the T90M and T84 better choices?

 

[Waylander]

That's pretty cheap for a Leo 2.

Malaysia isn't ready to take it to that step yet I'm afraid, what with all the political instability. I wish they could just pick a leader and get it done. I'm tired of reading about bickering politicians on the front-page of every newspaper. Why can't Malaysia have people like Putin and Reagan? They get the job done and silence bickering morons. (BN politicians included)

Anyway, good for Singapore. The Leo 2 is a formidable beast, even if it is second-hand. Who is producing munitions for the L/44s on these things?

There are several sources for 120mm smoothbore ammunition be it German, Swedish, US, Israeli or French companies.
Nearly all of them have most of their ammo products qualified on the Leopard II be it because it is their prime MBT or because it offers better export chances.

That's the problem with India and the UK. They have to develop their ammo solely on their own while 120mm and 125mm smoothbore users can chose from a variety of sources.

 

[eckherl]

You've got a point there. But, I still think the T90M would've been a better choice, given the price range for this tank and the T90M.

If you think the PT-91 would perform well, given the training and whatnot, what doesn't make tanks like the T90M and T84 better choices?

Both tanks that you have referenced to would of also been good choices, we do not know the full details of why the decision was made, at least I do not know the whole story. Maybe Poland offered a better support package for the cost of operating this tank, there are countries out there also that feel a little uneasy when it comes to dealing with certain countries.

 

[Tavarisch]

Too true. However, I think the most probable reason was that we were doing a barter trade that Russia and Ukraine didn't agree to I guess.

Well, unfortunately Malaysian politics is a bit tricky and it's a complete mess. If you had enough implicating evidence, the whole government would probably go down for receiving bribes and other dirty politics stuff. ( A bit exaggerating, but that will give you a rough idea of how things go down here sometimes. )

I guess we'll have to wait for somebody who knows the details of the deal.

 

[renjer]

All modern tank turret designs are of welded construction.

T-72 and early T-90 have cast turrets.
PT-91 has cast turret.

What about the Modular-T turret that the Russians were reportedly marketing for the T-72 family? Any idea if it is welded construction?

 

[DavidDCM]

And finally its MA, not MAF, that would be the Air Force.

If we already start nitpicking, than I want some, too:

MAF = Malaysian Armed Forces, and thus fully correct in this context

The correct abreviation for the Air Force is RMAF, Royal Malaysian Air Force.

 

[eckherl]

What about the Modular-T turret that the Russians were reportedly marketing for the T-72 family? Any idea if it is welded construction?

Hmm, the only T-72 turret that I am aware of that Russia started marketing is the Rogatka and that is a cast turret. Rumors have it that Algeria may look at this upgrade for 200 of their T-72 tanks along with continued purchase of T-90SA.

 

[nevidimka]

If we already start nitpicking, than I want some, too:

MAF = Malaysian Armed Forces, and thus fully correct in this context

The correct abreviation for the Air Force is RMAF, Royal Malaysian Air Force.

That is absolutely right. I got it mixed up. I was thinking Malaysian Army, and not Malaysian Armed Forces.

@eckherl

Do you agree that the T 90 is a better protected tank than the Pt91?

Do you agree that if both the PT 91 and T 90 was offered at similar prices with T 90 the better protected tanks, barter trade being a deal clincher makes it a bad choice?

Also don't you think the Russians incorporated what they learnt in Afghanistan, Chechnya and incorporated it into the T 90 tank design, which the T 72 lacks, and Poland having no significant war experience makes their upgraded T 72 less competitive to the T 90?

But my questions above does not mean that I don't believe that the Pt 91 could do its job in Mysia, after basing it on your arguments.