Armour/PT-90/ERA related questions

[Tavarisch]

The T-84 and and T-90 still remains the better choice. Considering the fact that the T-84U had APS compared to our current PT-91Ms which do not.

I hope in the future our government may seek a deal with the Ukrainians instead. The Poles are more and more becoming NATO'd and we'd best stay away from them, being NAM and all.

 

[DavidDCM]

You buy fighter jets directly from Russia and USA, but don't want to deal with Poland because you're in the NAM? That makes no sense

 

[nevidimka]

The evaluation entries were all the russian based medium weight tank. There were no Western heavy tank involved. Was this due to cost factor alone or due to their weight, they were not suitable for the Malaysian landscape and were canceled out? But if that were to be true, at least some form of evaluation should have been done b4 it was canceled out right?

 

[Waylander]

It just for pure cost reasons.

The total weight is just important when it comes to bridge crossing.
In all other circumstences ground pressure is much more important.

But if Malaysia would have wanted to buy a western design it would have needed much more money to also git the desired numbers.

 

[eckherl]

The T-84 and and T-90 still remains the better choice. Considering the fact that the T-84U had APS compared to our current PT-91Ms which do not.

I hope in the future our government may seek a deal with the Ukrainians instead. The Poles are more and more becoming NATO'd and we'd best stay away from them, being NAM and all.

Why would they be of better choice, because of armor protection values, what if the potential posing side has the proper projectile to penetrate the armor, then where is the advantage. Are you basing this on unreliable APS technology that can be countered with better missile guidance systems.

And who states that you cannot further upgrade this tank if needed.

 

[Waylander]

That's exactly the point. David also mentioned it before.
At the expected LOS not any of these tanks is going to save you from a L/44 with DM63 so why is more armorn a decent advantage?

And just have a look at what the neighbours had when the decision was made.
The Leos were bought more in reaction to the PTs and not vice versa.

Apart from Singapore's Javelin there are not that many ground weapons which are going to penetrate a PT frontally but are stopped by the armor of a T-84 or T-90.
And against Javelin a T-84 or T-90 is as much toast in the event of a hit as a PT is.

In a potential war against Singapore a T-84 or T-90 is not going to be much better than a PT. The AT assets (be it air or ground) used by Singapore can do as much harm to a PT as to the others and against the other neighbours a PT is as good a choice as is any of the other tanks.

Now include a cheaper price...

 

[STURM]

I think the main threat PT-91s are the Apaches with Hellfires, not the Spikes or Leopards. You can only rely on natural cover for concealment for so long. You still have to deploy to engage and maneuver.

Correct me if I'm wrong but maybe the Metis-M has a chance of achieving a frontal penetrtation of the Leopard 2A4? I think the Bakthar Shikan will have a similiar performance to TOW 1. Perhaps even large round shoulder fire weapons like Panzerfaust or LAW 80 will cause considerable damage to certain areas. We can assume that unless decent 125mm KE is bought, the PT-91 wont be able to achieve a frontal penetration. I read somewhere that Chehcian anti-tanks teams were equipped with 3-4 RPGs and were trained to hit a target at the same time, maximising the chances of damage.

 

[Feanor]

I read somewhere that Chehcian anti-tanks teams were equipped with 3-4 RPGs and were trained to hit a target at the same time, maximising the chances of damage.

Where did you read that? I suppose it's possible, but we'd be talking about very limited numbers of these kinds of teams. What you describe isn't easy even for a professional military.

 

[STURM]

I read an article on it. Chechian anti-tanks teams were also equipped with RPKs and Dragunovs to protect their RPG teams. A lot of them were
ex-Soviet military and some had previously fought in Abkhazia.

From: A Weapon For All Season [Lester Grau]

[To the moderator -I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post extracts from published articles]

''The Chechen lower-level combat group consisted of 15 to 20 personnel subdivided into three or four-man fighting cells. These cells had an antitank gunner (normally armed with the RPG-7 or RPG-18 shoulder-fired antitank rocket launcher), a machine gunner and a sniper. Additional personnel served as ammunition bearers and assistant gunners. Chechen combat groups deployed these cells as anti-armor hunter-killer teams. The sniper and machine gunner would pin down the supporting infantry while the antitank gunner would engage the armored target. Teams deployed at ground level, in second and third stories, and in basements of buildings. Normally five or six hunter-killer teams simultaneously attacked a single armored vehicle. Kill shots were generally made against the top, rear and sides of vehicles. Chechens also dropped bottles filled with gasoline or jellied fuel on top of vehicles. The Chechen hunter-killer teams tried to trap vehicle columns in city streets where destruction of the first and last vehicles will trap the column and allow its total destruction.''

''The rebels in Tadjikistan in 1992 applied this same technique when attacking T-72 tanks equipped with reactive armor. Since they lacked the anti-reactive armor PG-7VR tandem warhead, the first gunner would hit the tank to blow a hole in the reactive armor and the second and third gunner would fire the kill shots at the exposed area. This "double-teaming" also usually took out the tank's vision blocks, so if the tank survived, it was blind allowing the RPG gunners time to reposition, reload and reengage. Another "trick of the trade" was to throw a fragmentation grenade on the T-72's front deck to take out the driver's vision block before the massed RPGs opened up on the tank. The optimum shot for the Tadjik rebels was against the rear section of the T-72 turret. ''

 

[Tavarisch]

That's exactly the point. David also mentioned it before.
At the expected LOS not any of these tanks is going to save you from a L/44 with DM63 so why is more armorn a decent advantage?

And just have a look at what the neighbours had when the decision was made.
The Leos were bought more in reaction to the PTs and not vice versa.

Apart from Singapore's Javelin there are not that many ground weapons which are going to penetrate a PT frontally but are stopped by the armor of a T-84 or T-90.
And against Javelin a T-84 or T-90 is as much toast in the event of a hit as a PT is.

In a potential war against Singapore a T-84 or T-90 is not going to be much better than a PT. The AT assets (be it air or ground) used by Singapore can do as much harm to a PT as to the others and against the other neighbours a PT is as good a choice as is any of the other tanks.

Now include a cheaper price...

Actually, the both the T-84 and T-90 can mount APS, which is said to work nearly 80% of the time. The chances of survival against Heat-seeking ATGMs are quite high I imagine. They did a test with the T-90 and SHTORA and most of the ATGMs deflected.

I am unsure though of top attack missiles.

 

[STURM]

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, top attack munitions are dangerous for all MBTs. Its for this reason that on the Merkava 3 and 4, the hatches are so heavy they have to be power operated. On the Namer, the Israelis have done away with the 2nd hatch.

If i'm not mistaken, Schtora is only useful against SACLOS missiles like Milan, TOW, etc. Against newer systems like Spike and Javelin, Schtora isn't any use. One of the biggest MBT related contracts at the moment is the Indian army requirement for around 500 APS's to fit on their T-90s.

 

[eckherl]

Actually, the both the T-84 and T-90 can mount APS, which is said to work nearly 80% of the time. The chances of survival against Heat-seeking ATGMs are quite high I imagine. They did a test with the T-90 and SHTORA and most of the ATGMs deflected.

I am unsure though of top attack missiles.

You can mount these systems to any tank out there, and few countries seem interested in purchasing them for their T series, 80% figure from Russian sources when tested against Russian designed ATGMs not western, and I doubt that it will have that high of a success rate in modern combat fighting a opponent that has modernized ATGM capability.

 

[Type59]

You can mount these systems to any tank out there, and few countries seem interested in purchasing them for their T series, 80% figure from Russian sources when tested against Russian designed ATGMs not western, and I doubt that it will have that high of a success rate in modern combat fighting a opponent that has modernized ATGM capability.

Not to difficult to get western anti tank missiles. Not exactly top secret as opposed to fighter technology. History has shown the Russians have successfully penerated into secretive agencies like CIA and FBI, thus US army might be simplier.

many ways to do this

1, Buying stolen gear from US base personal, there have been cases of personal selling F 16 engine to uncover cops. Weopans in Iraq and Afghanistan have been lost, such as night vision, chance that missile can lost too.

2. Buy from third party, other armies have criminal elements in it too.

Lastly were talking about Russian military here, we know they are secretive.

 

[eckherl]

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, top attack munitions are dangerous for all MBTs. Its for this reason that on the Merkava 3 and 4, the hatches are so heavy they have to be power operated. On the Namer, the Israelis have done away with the 2nd hatch.

If i'm not mistaken, Schtora is only useful against SACLOS missiles like Milan, TOW, etc. Against newer systems like Spike and Javelin, Schtora isn't any use. One of the biggest MBT related contracts at the moment is the Indian army requirement for around 500 APS's to fit on their T-90s.

You may want to look at Tow 2B series.

 

[eckherl]

Not to difficult to get western anti tank missiles. Not exactly top secret as opposed to fighter technology. History has shown the Russians have successfully penerated into secretive agencies like CIA and FBI, thus US army might be simplier.

many ways to do this

1, Buying stolen gear from US base personal, there have been cases of personal selling F 16 engine to uncover cops. Weopans in Iraq and Afghanistan have been lost, such as night vision, chance that missile can lost too.

2. Buy from third party, other armies have criminal elements in it too.

Lastly were talking about Russian military here, we know they are secretive.

Not saying that they cannot get their hands on them, it is a open market and the cold war has been over for quite some time now. Hell even the U.S will be selling India in the near future Hellfire missiles, oh oh! could they be monkey modelsnfloorl: just kidding Waylander. The fact is that Russia designed this system by testing their own missiles against it, could it be that they are concerned with their good friend neighbors versus western capability, IR, laser and radio frequencies used for guidence systems can be modified to overcome such systems thus the reason why they are not selling them like hotcakes.

 

[nevidimka]

That's exactly the point. David also mentioned it before.
At the expected LOS not any of these tanks is going to save you from a L/44 with DM63 so why is more armorn a decent advantage?

And just have a look at what the neighbours had when the decision was made.
The Leos were bought more in reaction to the PTs and not vice versa.

Apart from Singapore's Javelin there are not that many ground weapons which are going to penetrate a PT frontally but are stopped by the armor of a T-84 or T-90.
And against Javelin a T-84 or T-90 is as much toast in the event of a hit as a PT is.

In a potential war against Singapore a T-84 or T-90 is not going to be much better than a PT. The AT assets (be it air or ground) used by Singapore can do as much harm to a PT as to the others and against the other neighbours a PT is as good a choice as is any of the other tanks.

Now include a cheaper price...

I think you are mistaken there. The Leo's were not bought as a reaction to the PT's but as an ongoing modernization process or 3G capability of the new Singapore's military.

 

[Waylander]

I am sure that Singapore had standing plans for an ongoing modernization of it's mechanized and armored forces.
But I also think that the news of Malaysia procuring the PTs and the nearly immediate availability of the surplus Leos made it easy for Singapore to make a fast decision about the procurement.

 

[OPSSG]

I am sure that Singapore had standing plans for an ongoing modernization of it's mechanized and armored forces.

There is a correlation but correlation is not causation.

The SAF typically has a long term plan for modernization. The first thing to change is doctrine and changes to weapon systems will be made in conjunction with the doctrine change. Once we 'prove' through trials that a concept works, the program for acquisition beings (typically a 2 to 4 year cycle). It will not be rushed and and it will not be an ad hoc reactive decision (though we are known to conduct reviews* based on new inputs). We are very interested in new capabilities and new platforms are a product of our desire for capability enhancement.

I was involved in certain trials in the late 1980s and we have only recently declassified aspects of those trials now called the Army 2000 project. I can tell you certain weapon platforms that were introduced in the 1990s were the result of decisions made in the 1980s.

But I also think that the news of Malaysia procuring the PTs and the nearly immediate availability of the surplus Leos made it easy for Singapore to make a fast decision about the procurement.

IMHO, there has been unrelenting pressure by the army to upgrade our equipment and the Leo 2A4 acquisition is part of the pressure we put on Mindef and the minister. Please note that all the necessary support equipment were acquired or designed before the Leo 2A4 acquisition (Bronco fuel resupply vehicles, M3 and even our VLBs). It has been recently announced that we will upgrade armour protection for the Leo 2A4 and the weight increase was catered for by prior planning.

The reason we are so happy with the PT-91M purchase (it is a MBT after all), is that once that occurred and there was no need to 'hide' our Leo 2A4 acquisition.

Singapore is politically sensitive in relation to any 'offensive' equipment acquisition to avoid protests in Malaysia (on our offensive capabilities). Even a book on the SAF affected Malaysia-Singapore relations.

Sorry about the long reply to a single point.

--------------------------------
* Singapore was offered the F-18, when Malaysia and Thailand (order cancelled) placed orders. We reviewed our decision and went ahead with our 20x F-16 block 52+ (or F-16I) purchase.

 

[STURM]

Certainly agree with the points made by OPSSG.

The main benefits that the SAF has over the MAF is that there's higher public awareness amongst the Singaporean population when it comes to defence. And more importanty, threat perceptions. Malaysia doesn't feel as vulnerable as Singapore. Malaysians as a whole, despite the 'Emergency' and 'Confontation', remain pretty much complacent and ignorant when it comes to national security. Both states have long term defence modernisation plans but the key differance is the MAF is unable to implement its defence modernisation plans on a sustained basis to due to the inconsistancy of funds provided by the government, plus internal political factors. Plans for the MBTs and SSKs were first drawn up in the 80s but have only been implemented now.

I still remember from newspaper reports, the fuss kicked up by politicans from neighbouring states when it was announced that a mere 8 Tornado IDRs were included in an arms MOU signed with Malaysia and the UK in 1988.

 

[DavidDCM]

The reason we are so happy with the PT-91M purchase (it is a MBT after all), is that once that occurred, there was no need to 'hide' our Leo 2A4 acquisition, unlike the 'Tempest' (a modernised 40s-50s design) that still does not officially exist.

I've always considered the Centurion Tempest as a myth. Do you believe it actually exists? How could a tank unit effictively exist when they never go on the training range or somewhere else where they could be seen in public?