Malaysian Army/Land forces discussions
- Thread starter weasel1962
- Start date
Baktar Shikan has a single load warhead. But as none of Malaysias neighbours uses ERA, it's not needed (The Metis-M has a tandem warhead, but possibly only because there exists no single version).
The RPG-7 made by POF is going to be a general service weapon, possibly used by all units of RAMD and RRD. The sheer numbers are too big to make it just a special-forces-only weapon. The SF or 10th Para Brigade could never use up so many RPG's.
The T-72BM Rogatka would cost much more than the PT-91M, as it features Shtora and Relikt ERA. I don't know if Russia would even sell Relikt. Without Shtora and Relikt, there's nothing that this tank could do that the PT-91M couldn't do as well. Same goes for Ukrainian upgrades.
Attached is a pic of the AK-102 in use with PASKAL. Have never seen the AK-101.
The RPG-7 made by POF is going to be a general service weapon, possibly used by all units of RAMD and RRD. The sheer numbers are too big to make it just a special-forces-only weapon. The SF or 10th Para Brigade could never use up so many RPG's.
The T-72BM Rogatka would cost much more than the PT-91M, as it features Shtora and Relikt ERA. I don't know if Russia would even sell Relikt. Without Shtora and Relikt, there's nothing that this tank could do that the PT-91M couldn't do as well. Same goes for Ukrainian upgrades.
Attached is a pic of the AK-102 in use with PASKAL. Have never seen the AK-101.
Last edited:
At a DSA exhibition years back, a salesman at the Bakthar Shikan stand said that the Bakthar Shikan 2 with a dual warhead had been developed but declined to say if had been included in the Malaysian order.
Also have been unable to find out if the Igla in service is the improved Igla S.
The people at the KBP stand, wouldn't say.
Also have been unable to find out if the Igla in service is the improved Igla S.
The people at the KBP stand, wouldn't say.
Last edited:
tosho daimos
New Member
so thats mean bakhtar shikan used by MAF is single tandem warhead?... hi i,m new here... nice to meet you all
Mr Ignorant
New Member
I would be more interested in what Dzirhan would have to say about future purchases. Yes, the procurement of the M4/M16A4 rifles mitigated the early failure of the Steyr deal somewhat, but I feel we have all been down this route already.
We can only be grateful for the current Army structure now, but we just cannot be burdened by Politicians and their interest groups thinking they know what is best for the Army. Most of these sectors are avaricious to the point of disgust, and really, Mindef and the Defence Ministry need to buckle up and listen.
We can only be grateful for the current Army structure now, but we just cannot be burdened by Politicians and their interest groups thinking they know what is best for the Army. Most of these sectors are avaricious to the point of disgust, and really, Mindef and the Defence Ministry need to buckle up and listen.
Last edited:
I think its also an AK 102, because it is a short version of the AK 101, but the pic indicates that it is an AK-101.
I think if Russia wont sell the Relikt, the K5 or Kaktus may be exportable in that upgrade.
Btw you have some interest on MAF, and you are a German?
I couldn't agree any less. Our Defense Ministry needs some serious political ass whooping. But I don't blame them. Look at who is leading them. (Points to Pak Lah)
As david said its Ak102...AFAIK only paskal use it. That said the army and the police did possesed AK-47,RPD and RPK mainly for training and OPFOR use.
Well I stand corrected on the AKs, the armed forces does buy certain weapons in small quantities particularly the SFs, and it won't be reported. On the RPG, I thought it was the RPG that was the Russian version of the LAW that was purchased. Not sure if the numbers are that correct.
Good morning, everyone.
I would like to discuss the army's requirements with regards to the replacement of its Sibmas and Condors. There is an article in this month's Tempur magazine on this topic (the latest among many).
Personally, I would like to see the two replaced by a single 8x8 platform. With the Rosomak and the Centauro being my favourites. The Rosomak has the Nemo 120mm mortar turret and the BMP 100mm direct fire turrets as offerings. With integration work already done. While the Centauro with its 105mm cannon is a strong attraction.
What are your opionions?
I would like to discuss the army's requirements with regards to the replacement of its Sibmas and Condors. There is an article in this month's Tempur magazine on this topic (the latest among many).
Personally, I would like to see the two replaced by a single 8x8 platform. With the Rosomak and the Centauro being my favourites. The Rosomak has the Nemo 120mm mortar turret and the BMP 100mm direct fire turrets as offerings. With integration work already done. While the Centauro with its 105mm cannon is a strong attraction.
What are your opionions?
Wheeled platforms tend to be more exposed to small-arms than tracks are. Even if a 5.56 couldn't blow up tyres on a Stryker, a 12.7 would with API rounds would.
A tracked platform fares way better but of course is much slower to this regard.
A 1:1 replacement would need more than 600 new vehicles, which Malaysia has not really enough money for at the moment.
I think we should analyze the exact role of the vehicles in the today's army and how to fill these roles with modern vehicles.
The Sibmas comes in two versions: fire support vehicle with 90 mm cannon and recovery vehicle. The fire support version also can transport a squad sized infantry unit.
The 90 mm cannon has an engagement range of ~1.000 m and can fire HEAT and HESH/HEP rounds. This is enough to destroy enemy field fortifications and light vehicles up to APC's.
What should the new vehicle be able to do? If it shall be able to take out even MBT's in a tank hunter role, than you need a 120 or 125 mm gun. If you just want to support your infantry than you could go with the 105 mm gun or possibly even stay with the 90 mm. For the occasional anti-tank ambush you could equip it with a ATGM launcher.
The Condor is used in more diverse ways. It comes not only as fighting vehicle (armed with either a 20mm autocannon or twin 7,62 MG), but also as recovery vehicle, ambulance vehicle and command&control vehicle.
The fighting and recovery versions should use the same vehicle like the cannon version. The ambulance and c&c could possibly use a smaller vehicle.
I think we should analyze the exact role of the vehicles in the today's army and how to fill these roles with modern vehicles.
The Sibmas comes in two versions: fire support vehicle with 90 mm cannon and recovery vehicle. The fire support version also can transport a squad sized infantry unit.
The 90 mm cannon has an engagement range of ~1.000 m and can fire HEAT and HESH/HEP rounds. This is enough to destroy enemy field fortifications and light vehicles up to APC's.
What should the new vehicle be able to do? If it shall be able to take out even MBT's in a tank hunter role, than you need a 120 or 125 mm gun. If you just want to support your infantry than you could go with the 105 mm gun or possibly even stay with the 90 mm. For the occasional anti-tank ambush you could equip it with a ATGM launcher.
The Condor is used in more diverse ways. It comes not only as fighting vehicle (armed with either a 20mm autocannon or twin 7,62 MG), but also as recovery vehicle, ambulance vehicle and command&control vehicle.
The fighting and recovery versions should use the same vehicle like the cannon version. The ambulance and c&c could possibly use a smaller vehicle.
Actually in the case of tank hunter role, the D-10T 100 mm should be enough. Of course, it should be modified to be able to fire ATGMs through it's gun like the BMP-3 does.
If a Leopard 2 is rolling towards your position you should not fire at it with anything less than a full-sized 120/125mm tank gun. Everything else is suicide. The D-10 tankgun is obsolete, it can not even reliably kill an M60 and has an engagement range that is not much higher than that of the 90 mm Cockerill.
The primary role of the units that will receive the new vehicle should not be open anti-tank-warfare. That's what Malaysia has the PT-91M for. Even ambushes to the flank of enemy MBT's should not be their primary role.
The primary role should be to quickly break through enemy infantry formations by making use of the good mobility and speed of their vehicles and their weapons. For this they mainly need a powerful HE round and a modern FCS that allows them firing on the move and real night-fighting capabilities (both of which the Sibmas as well as the Condor lack). I am almost tempted to say that the 90 mm gun might be fully sufficient for this role. As I stated before, put a ATGM launcher on top of the turret and they even have the capability to destroy a tank if they should ever get the chance to do.
The primary role of the units that will receive the new vehicle should not be open anti-tank-warfare. That's what Malaysia has the PT-91M for. Even ambushes to the flank of enemy MBT's should not be their primary role.
The primary role should be to quickly break through enemy infantry formations by making use of the good mobility and speed of their vehicles and their weapons. For this they mainly need a powerful HE round and a modern FCS that allows them firing on the move and real night-fighting capabilities (both of which the Sibmas as well as the Condor lack). I am almost tempted to say that the 90 mm gun might be fully sufficient for this role. As I stated before, put a ATGM launcher on top of the turret and they even have the capability to destroy a tank if they should ever get the chance to do.
You can use a jungle knife to open a tin can but a can opener will do the job better.
I agree with David, please recommend the right tool for the right job. David, you make some very good points.DavidDCM said:
Yes, ideally that would be the case if their infantry opponent was not also well equipped with anti-tank weapons. :duelDavidDCM said:
Yes, as a direct fire infantry support weapon, a 90 mm gun is sufficient.:whipDavidDCM said:
Save for urban and developed areas in West Malaysia, there are lots of closed terrain in the Malaysian army's areas of operations (and I'm also thinking of East Malaysia).DavidDCM said:
East Malaysia is armed tank/IFV ambush territory and contact ranges are going to be very close (IFV knife fight distances). In fact both East and West Malaysia are not traditional tank country. More thinking may be needed on the concept of employment in the terrain that the Malaysian army is very conversant in.
I'll stop here and make no further comment. I leave it to you and the Malaysians to continue this discussion.
Last edited:
I don't see any point in fitting a 105mm to any future 8x8s. A 25mm or a 30mm should be sufficient in dealing with any light armoured AFVs. The Sibmas and Scorpions fitted with 90mm Cockerills were intended to be fire support vehicles and not intended to be used for hunting armour. It remains to be seen if the army's doctrine still calls for a wheeled vehicle to be used as a gun fire support platform, to support infantry. I doubt it.
For the East Malaysian theatre I expect a wheeled solution as better. Unlike peninsular Malaysia, which only has relatively narrow borders in the north and south with few entry routes for an invading force, the East has a border of immense length with Indonesia. As there is no railway in the East, the road mobility of a wheeld vehicle is preferrable.
With the arrival of the new vehicle I expect the army to do some major restructuring in their order of battle. Until a decade ago the battalions with Sibmas and Condor where the heaviest units of the army and each division's main offensive asset (at least that's what I imagine they are). This has been changed in recent years, with the arrival of the ACV-300 and the PT-91M. I expect a 1:1 replacement is not necessary anymore, as part of the capabilities of the Sibmas/Condor are now taken by the ACV-300/PT-91M, especially the southern division does not really need a wheeled armor battalion anymore in my opinion. But their main operational area is the south of peninsular Malaysia, this is were they are deployed (except for one ACV300 bataillon in the north, at the Thai border). The northern division would go well with the same combination as the south, I suppose the only reason for this not happening is good old money. The Eastern division against that should rely on wheeled solutions.
A 90 mm gun can never be wrong The US recently deployed the Stryker MGS with a 105 mm gun in the anti-infantry role and seem to be quite happy with it. Autocannons can do alot, but they have their limits. If I were to attack an enemy position that has some big ugly obstacles and is waiting for me in (semi-)fortified positions I take a 90 mm gun over an autocannon any day.
With the arrival of the new vehicle I expect the army to do some major restructuring in their order of battle. Until a decade ago the battalions with Sibmas and Condor where the heaviest units of the army and each division's main offensive asset (at least that's what I imagine they are). This has been changed in recent years, with the arrival of the ACV-300 and the PT-91M. I expect a 1:1 replacement is not necessary anymore, as part of the capabilities of the Sibmas/Condor are now taken by the ACV-300/PT-91M, especially the southern division does not really need a wheeled armor battalion anymore in my opinion. But their main operational area is the south of peninsular Malaysia, this is were they are deployed (except for one ACV300 bataillon in the north, at the Thai border). The northern division would go well with the same combination as the south, I suppose the only reason for this not happening is good old money. The Eastern division against that should rely on wheeled solutions.
A 90 mm gun can never be wrong
The US recently deployed the Stryker MGS with a 105 mm gun in the anti-infantry role and seem to be quite happy with it. Autocannons can do alot, but they have their limits. If I were to attack an enemy position that has some big ugly obstacles and is waiting for me in (semi-)fortified positions I take a 90 mm gun over an autocannon any day.I have no problems with a wheeled vehicle armed with a 90mm or 105mm to take out fortifications and light armour. This was a role the Scorpion and Sibmas was intended for during a time when the main focus was the counter insurgency campaign. The only problem is unless applique armour and a bar cage is fitted, any future wheeled 8x8 is extremely vurnerable to anything higher than 7.62mm. According to 'Tempur', the army has specified that any future wheeled platform must not exceed 25 tonnes. So this leaves the question of whether the platform can be up-armoured and still meet the weight limitation.