Armour/PT-90/ERA related questions

[STURM]

The main problem with installing bar armour to the rear of the engine deck is the 2 fuel tanks. It should be possible to fit a custom designed bar piece to the engine deck and then refitting the fuel tanks after that.

Whether its worth the trouble is the main question here. Such a modification would only be useful against shoulder launched weapons but would be useless against anything heavier.

 

[DavidDCM]

Are we talking about tanks in general or the PT-91 in particular? In my eyes such slat armor arrays are only useful in assymetrical warfare, with ambushes from behind being a serious issue. In a classic open warfare scenario with the enemy "at 12 o'clock" you shouldn't meddle around too much with rear protection as this should not happen all too often. Both Poland and Malaysia are not currently engaged in such assymetrical operations with tanks in theatre and probably will not be in the foreseeable future. So this discussion is very theoretical in nature. The technical feasibility should be no problem, just build the slat array around the fuel tanks.

Are those barrels even installed during combat ops? I thought they are more for street marches and are removed when the tank is heading into combat.

 

[STURM]

DavidDCM, I was talking about the PT-91. I feel the Malaysian army spent a lot upgrading the tank but neglected to improve its armour protection. Granted, improving the armour brings along extra weight which effects performance but I think the benefits outweight everything else. Then again, after selecting the PT-91 they were probably stuck with ERAWA, with no choice.

About the fuels tanks, good question. I have no idea if Soviet/Russian tank doctrine called for discarding the fuel tanks upon engaging in combat. The main problem for the Malaysian army is that they'll have to learn a lot of things from scratch with the MBTs and develop their own doctrine to suit their operating enviroment. I think the best people to speak to would about tank operations in a similiar enviroment would be the Vietnamese.

 

[Waylander]

Jup, the fuel drums are jettisoned before entering a dangerous area.

 

[nevidimka]

DavidDCM, I was talking about the PT-91. I feel the Malaysian army spent a lot upgrading the tank but neglected to improve its armour protection. Granted, improving the armour brings along extra weight which effects performance but I think the benefits outweight everything else. Then again, after selecting the PT-91 they were probably stuck with ERAWA, with no choice.

About the fuels tanks, good question. I have no idea if Soviet/Russian tank doctrine called for discarding the fuel tanks upon engaging in combat. The main problem for the Malaysian army is that they'll have to learn a lot of things from scratch with the MBTs and develop their own doctrine to suit their operating enviroment. I think the best people to speak to would about tank operations in a similiar enviroment would be the Vietnamese.

I think DavidDCM would have a different opinion on protection in regards to the Pt 91.

Also what do you mean upgrading the tank? What was upgraded on the tank other than the FCS?

Anyways, you seem not in favour of the Pt91? Which tank you believe should meet the requirement of the MAF?

 

[DavidDCM]

The PT-91M can take everything short of a 120 mm tankgun. Same goes for the T-90 with Kontakt 5, especially in close ranges. So would it really make a difference?

RPG's, ATGM's, autocannons, and smaller tankguns (75 - 105 mm) can not hurt the PT-91M frontally. That should be enough. (maybe 105 mm with most advanced KE ammunition can hurt the PT-91M, but I doubt Thailand has such a round).

 

[Tavarisch]

The PT-91M can take everything short of a 120 mm tankgun. Same goes for the T-90 with Kontakt 5, especially in close ranges. So would it really make a difference?

RPG's, ATGM's, autocannons, and smaller tankguns (75 - 105 mm) can not hurt the PT-91M frontally. That should be enough. (maybe 105 mm with most advanced KE ammunition can hurt the PT-91M, but I doubt Thailand has such a round).

Our Southern Neighbors can lob 120 DU rounds at our tank. But, chances are that we won't be fighting them unless some radical or crazy extremist decides to stage a coup de tat in which the US will help to ensure in it's failure.

 

[DavidDCM]

Yes, that was what I meant. Singapore's Leo 2 can reliably destroy the PT-91M, but this wouldn't be different if Malaysia had bought the T-90 instead of it. So in the end it doesn't really matter.

And don't forget that at the time the PT contract was signed, there was no Leopard 2 in Singapore. So at that time, there was basically nothing in the whole region that could reliably kill the PT through the front.

 

[OPSSG]

Our Southern Neighbors can lob 120 DU rounds at our tank. But, chances are that we won't be fighting them unless some radical or crazy extremist decides to stage a coup de tat in which the US will help to ensure in it's failure.

You have only one immediate southern neighbour with 120 mm tank rounds (I don't think the Indonesians have that too), so I assume it must be us you are talking about. BTW, tanks rounds are direct fire weapons (so it is usually not 'lob' rounds). I would reserve the word 'lob' for 155 mm cargo rounds (which is what the ERA is for). For that matter, the PT-91M can also kill a Leo 2A4.

Besides, I have more confidence in Malaysia (in your constitution and in your peoples) to sort out the current political problems that you. I also have confidence in the professionalism of the MAF to deter and prevent any coup de tat attempts.

As I explained before, we Singaporeans like shopping in JB (to buy DVDS and other goodies) too much, so no invasion is likely. We have an army of mainly conscripts, so we are more keen to go about our lives. nfloorl:

 

[Tavarisch]

You have only one immediate southern neighbour with 120 mm tank rounds (I don't think the Indonesians have that too), so I assume it must be us you are talking about. BTW, tanks rounds are direct fire weapons (so it is usually not 'lob' rounds). I would reserve the word 'lob' for 155 mm cargo rounds (which is what the ERA is for). For that matter, the PT-91M can also kill a Leo 2A4.

Besides, I have more confidence in Malaysia (in your constitution and in your peoples) to sort out the current political problems that you. I also have confidence in the professionalism of the MAF to deter and prevent any coup de tat attempts.

As I explained before, we Singaporeans like shopping in JB (to buy DVDS and other goodies) too much, so no invasion is likely. We have an army of mainly conscripts, so we are more keen to go about our lives. nfloorl:

I meant lob in a funny way. It's a funny word. I do not doubt the chances of our tank against your second-hand Leo but I'm sure they have a better chance of winning, primarily because your Leos are more armored and there are more Leos compared to the Pendekars.

I do believe that Indonesia operates a T90S or T90M but I am unsure of it. I'm sure Feanor could elaborate on any deal with Indonesia but it is very unlikely.

And, apparently DVDs aren't the only thing you guys buy. Some of you I've heard (More like my uncle, his family is from Singapore but he was born here) like to buy cheaper oil in Johor Bahru too. (BTW, what's up with the Ramli Burger problem? I hear you guys can't buy them?)

And let's remember what Soviet Conscripts did to the Germans in Stalingrad eh. (Okay, you guys don't have 20 million to spare like we do or have military commissars but still, never underestimate a conscript force..... )

 

[DavidDCM]

Indonesia does not have a Main Battle Tank, nor are they planning to buy one.

 

[STURM]

Nevidimka, to answer your question about the upgrades done, besides the Savan FCS. I suppose these are more modifications than upgrades.

Slovakian gun with 2 axis stabiliser
EADS turret drive
mine protected seat for the driver
new 1,000hp engine
Renk auto transmission
Diehl tracks
improvements to the torsion bar
Vigy 15 sight

Almost a brand new tank.

 

[nevidimka]

Nevidimka, to answer your question about the upgrades done, besides the Savan FCS. I suppose these are more modifications than upgrades.

Slovakian gun with 2 axis stabiliser
EADS turret drive
mine protected seat for the driver
new 1,000hp engine
Renk auto transmission
Diehl tracks
improvements to the torsion bar
Vigy 15 sight

Almost a brand new tank.

I'm sure during the evaluation, these upgrades were not part of the evaluation. So how does the Pt 91 win the evaluation test if, this much was in need to be upgraded?

 

[Feanor]

There were some speculations about T-90 sales to Indonesia, but nothing ever came of it. There is a small BMP-3 contract to Indonesia. That's about the closest thing.

 

[Tavarisch]

Why do these sales always become inconclusive in the end? It's been bugging me........ (Arab Saudi, Indonesia.... What's going on?)

I do believe though that Malaysia should further promote diplomatic ties between us and Russia. Russia is the closest thing to a super power here and I do not trust the Chinese in the PRC, despite the PLA being a power in it's own right. (To some extent at least)

 

[STURM]

Nevidimka, those were the modifications made to suit Malaysian requirements. Out of the 3 contenders, the T-90, T-84 and PT-91, only the army and probably Deftech knows who did the best, performance wise. The PT-91 was probably selected due to political reasons, price tag and offsets agreed by the Poles.

In an article for an Australian mag in 2002, Dzirhan said that the favourite then, was the T-84. Deftech even announced it. The choice of the PT-91 surprised many. Prior the the PT-91 being offered, the T-72MI was sent for trials in Malaysia and was fitted with an LIW Tiger FCS. In the late 90s, GLS from Germany even offered to mount a T-72 turret on a Leopard 1 hull.
The Korean KI was offered, but rumour has it that there problems with the US in supplying the US made FCS to a third party. According to what I read in another forum years ago, the Slovakian gun was selected because the Polish gun wasn't accurate enough to be paired with the Savan FCS.

 

[nevidimka]

Nevidimka, those were the modifications made to suit Malaysian requirements. Out of the 3 contenders, the T-90, T-84 and PT-91, only the army and probably Deftech knows who did the best, performance wise. The PT-91 was probably selected due to political reasons, price tag and offsets agreed by the Poles.

In an article for an Australian mag in 2002, Dzirhan said that the favourite then, was the T-84. Deftech even announced it. The choice of the PT-91 surprised many. Prior the the PT-91 being offered, the T-72MI was sent for trials in Malaysia and was fitted with an LIW Tiger FCS. In the late 90s, GLS from Germany even offered to mount a T-72 turret on a Leopard 1 hull.
The Korean KI was offered, but rumour has it that there problems with the US in supplying the US made FCS to a third party. According to what I read in another forum years ago, the Slovakian gun was selected because the Polish gun wasn't accurate enough to be paired with the Savan FCS.

Btw do you mean T 80? coz on the MAF thread a pic was posted on the tank, and it looked like T 80. T 84 would be a Ukrainian upgraded tank with bustle mounted auto loader.
Those modifications indicate a lot IMO. It involves the Gun,FCS, mine protection,engine,transmission, tracks, and optical sensors. These are a lot of modification to the original tank. That would probably indicate that the tank failed in many respects of its evaluation.

 

[STURM]

The T-84 was displayed at DSA 2000 and took part in mobility trials with the T-90. I'm not aware of the T-80 being offered.

 

[DavidDCM]

It was the T-84U that was offered to Malaysia. It's not much different from the T-80.

The tanks that you mean (with the bustle autoloader etc.) are called T-84 Oplot and T-84 Yatagan, and were not offered to Malaysia.

Pic: T-84U during mobility tests in Malaysia

 

[nevidimka]

It was the T-84U that was offered to Malaysia. It's not much different from the T-80.

The tanks that you mean (with the bustle autoloader etc.) are called T-84 Oplot and T-84 Yatagan, and were not offered to Malaysia.

Pic: T-84U during mobility tests in Malaysia

Ahh, my mistake. Thanks for clarifying. I thought the T 84 was Oplot all around, and that the version without bustle auto loader are called T 80 by the Ukrainians.

I also suspect that the T 80 was the real winner in the evaluation, considering it had the most powerful engine as well.