Singaporean Leopard 2A4s debut in Australia

[Firn]

OPSSG&Waylander I certainly matches well with what I have read. Thermals were not widespread during training.

If they have to move in relatively open terrain they may very well get a programmable 120mm HE ontop of their squad from a tank 2 klicks away which they haven't even seen before it fires.

I would have feared that and especially well-directed and observed heavy indirect fire. In our mountains you usually have quite a lot of slopes, broken ground, built-up areas, cover through vegetation, choke points etc along the main axis of advance. In short a rather nighmarish situation for any tank. Even then chances are high that the tanks get a hail of Panzerfausts and some Milan before they know that drove into an ambush. Heavy use of ISR assets, especially UAV and heavy precise firepower would have been the way to go.

Take a look how things often look along most important connection between central Europe/Germany and Italy.

Photo

Topo

BTW about hearing. I always wondered why there was no widespread "listening equipment". This things are great. For a listening post just plug in one of these[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvP0OlfXaSU"]high-tech gadgets[/ame]


Anyway given how much things we had to carry + the bodyarmor... You had to emit alot of humid heat. On the other a widespread wide-meshy net of OPs and LPs up on the hills and mountains would see moving AFV (or cars ) often from 30 klicks or more with the right equipment.

 

[Waylander]

Sure an armored spearhead driving into a blocking position manned by light infantry in a terrain which gives the infantry some cover is going to have to eat alot of portable AT-Weapons as well as some AT-mines.

But one should not underestimate the shock effect an armored assault has on infantry.
The amount of firepower together with the look and sounds of 60+ tons of steel coming into your direction with 40+ km/h might very well lead to the infantry breaking away.

The other problem is that light infantry lacks the ability to perform a delaying action or to fall back into secondary fighting positions in the face of a mechanized/armored attack.
And it is much easier to surpress enemy infantry with artillery than it is to surpress AFVs in their fighting positions.

That remembers me of the role our airborn infantry would have played when the cold war turned into a hot one. Sending them into a breach and positioning them right in front of the Sovjet armored spearheads might be an "interesting" experience for light infantry forces. Especially with the sovjets performing a wall of fire in front of their foremost units...

 

[Firn]

But one should not underestimate the shock effect an armored assault has on infantry.
The amount of firepower together with the look and sounds of 60+ tons of steel coming into your direction with 40+ km/h might very well lead to the infantry breaking away.

The other problem is that light infantry lacks the ability to perform a delaying action or to fall back into secondary fighting positions in the face of a mechanized/armored attack.
And it is much easier to surpress enemy infantry with artillery than it is to surpress AFVs in their fighting positions.

The big two advantages in the mountains - and in such positions as shown in the links - are the AFV hardly can operate at normal speeds and that you can use the cluttered environment, especially the reversed slopes to fall back. A combined armed force would usually face a "complex" ambush with obstacles and mines, portable AT-weapons and MGs with mortars and hopefully heavy artillery as indirect support weapons.

With modern technology even just "eyes" nearby and firepower from over the hills and far away could do bad things.

That remembers me of the role our airborn infantry would have played when the cold war turned into a hot one. Sending them into a breach and positioning them right in front of the Sovjet armored spearheads might be an "interesting" experience for light infantry forces. Especially with the sovjets performing a wall of fire in front of their foremost units...

Especially when they had little time to prepare their positions. But given the sheer weight and power of the massed soviet artillery...

 

[Waylander]

Sure, mountains are the home of the mountain infantry and the attached support units.

I would not want to be part of some mechanized division which try to fight their way through mountains like in the alps.
The valleys are going to be death traps just by the nature of their topography.

Add a huge amount of bunkers and fortifications like in Switzerland as well as a small but capable mechanized force for counterattacks and every army on this planet is going to curse the day they entered the mountains.

 

[DavidDCM]

Well, Singapore does not have any serious mountains, so why should they train mountain warfare?

@David
I wouldn't wonder if the Singaporeans also get to see a little show performed by Panzerlehr.

To see them performing is always quite nice if one can get a place on one of the tribunes.

I'm sure they would be happy to show our Singaporean comrades how German tank tactics work

 

[Firn]

I would not want to be part of some mechanized division which try to fight their way through mountains like in the alps.
The valleys are going to be death traps just by the nature of their topography.

Add a huge amount of bunkers and fortifications like in Switzerland as well as a small but capable mechanized force for counterattacks and every army on this planet is going to curse the day they entered the mountains.

True enough. Horses for Courses.

Well, Singapore does not have any serious mountains, so why should they train mountain warfare?

You certainly don't want to insult might Bukit_Timah

Nah I think there are several good reasons behind the tank training in Germany. While it isn't as hot, it is often quite humid and combined with the muddy soil and the specific terrain it should be aproximate well potentially important areas of operations. Add the seemingly great training facilities, the very active tanker community and the tank itself and you have a great possiblities to learn.

 

[SGMilitary]

Hey people,

Anyone with relevant information about SAF Leopard 2A4 MBTs?

What's the actual number of tanks procured and is there any folllow up?

What about the full capabilities of the SAF leopard 2A4 MBTs?

Regards.

 

[DavidDCM]

The tanks are identical to the German Leopard 2A4's. The number was IIRC 132 tanks. No more vehicles are planned. Upgrades are planned, but the definite systems have not been named yet.

 

[sunshin3]

...The number was IIRC 132 tanks. No more vehicles are planned. Upgrades are planned, but the definite systems have not been named yet.

David and Red, Straits Times reported that Singapore has bought a total of 102 Leopard 2 tanks and NOT the132 figure previously mentioned. There is some discrepancy in the numbers reported.

It`s official and it is from the Chief of Army`s mouth no less. The Leo 2A4s will be extensively upgraded. Here are the details;

1) They will retain the L44 120mm gun for the time being while retaining the possbility of upgrading them to the L55 gun in future. SAF feels that the L44 will be more than adequate currently given our own threat scenarios. Instead, the SAF will leverage on new versatile kinetic energy and multiple purpose ammunition(advanced kinetic energy rounds and programmable fuze, multi-purpose rounds) to hit and kill targets.

2) New network-centric Battlefield management system to be installed so that the Leos are linked to the SAF`s over-arching battle network.(Already known)

3) New "data-bus" system for better connectivity(SAF`s UAVs and other network centric systems)

4) New Auxilliary Power Unit for better sustainability and power

5) New fire control system for enhanced lethality

6) New armour modules "all-round" for better protection;hence new look

7) New running gear to cater for new weight growth due to new armour; im guessing it will probably be in the range of 60-65 tons.

8) Other upgrades he did not mention...

Red, do you have any other updates on upgrades to the 2A4s?

 

[Red]

David and Red, Straits Times reported that Singapore has bought a total of 102 Leopard 2 tanks and NOT the132 figure previously mentioned. There is some discrepancy in the numbers reported.



Red, do you have any other updates on upgrades to the 2A4s?

Hi,

There is no discrepancy. The additional 30 tanks are the spare tanks from the first round of purchases; 66 Leo 2s plus 30 Leo 2 "spare" tanks. The second round of purchases involves 36 more Leo 2s plus "x" number Leo 2 "spare" tanks.

As such, the total determinable number of Leo 2s is 132 tanks plus additonal "spare" tanks from the second round of purchases. My guess is that Singapore probably bought somewhere near the region of 140-150 Leo 2s. Im not sure if more Leo 2s would be bought to replace remaining AMX-12 SM1 tanks in operation. The SAF is very impressed with the Leo 2s.

No information as per upgrades yet apart from the Chief of Army stating that the latter will be upgraded. It is said that Singapore has more than 1 MBT type. Google around for sales of tank parts from the middle east to other parts of the world; parts for relatively new modern tanks.

 

[Red]

Hi,

There is no discrepancy. The additional 30 tanks are the spare tanks from the first round of purchases; 66 Leo 2s plus 30 Leo 2 "spare" tanks. The second round of purchases involves 36 more Leo 2s plus "x" number Leo 2 "spare" tanks.

As such, the total determinable number of Leo 2s is 132 tanks plus additonal "spare" tanks from the second round of purchases. My guess is that Singapore probably bought somewhere near the region of 140-150 Leo 2s. Im not sure if more Leo 2s would be bought to replace remaining AMX-13 SM1 tanks in operation. The SAF is very impressed with the Leo 2s.

No information as per upgrades yet apart from the Chief of Army stating that the latter will be upgraded. It is said that Singapore has more than 1 MBT type. Google around for sales of tank parts from the middle east to other parts of the world; parts for relatively new modern tanks.

Typo. I meant Amx 13 SM1 tanks.

 

[eckherl]

Sure an armored spearhead driving into a blocking position manned by light infantry in a terrain which gives the infantry some cover is going to have to eat alot of portable AT-Weapons as well as some AT-mines.

But one should not underestimate the shock effect an armored assault has on infantry.
The amount of firepower together with the look and sounds of 60+ tons of steel coming into your direction with 40+ km/h might very well lead to the infantry breaking away.

The other problem is that light infantry lacks the ability to perform a delaying action or to fall back into secondary fighting positions in the face of a mechanized/armored attack.
And it is much easier to surpress enemy infantry with artillery than it is to surpress AFVs in their fighting positions.

That remembers me of the role our airborn infantry would have played when the cold war turned into a hot one. Sending them into a breach and positioning them right in front of the Sovjet armored spearheads might be an "interesting" experience for light infantry forces. Especially with the sovjets performing a wall of fire in front of their foremost units...

I was involved in a test of a light infantry brigade, we attacked them with a armored battalion (56 tanks) and totally wiped them out in less than 2 hours, scratch using Humvees and other wheeled assetts as a primary means of transportation will mixing it up with a opponent.

 

[kato]

I was involved in a test of a light infantry brigade,

Mmm, I'd say it depends a lot on the specific makeup of the brigade.

Might be a bit more difficult if facing the D/F-Brigade with their 36 AMX-10RC, 6 Wiesel TOW, 40+ VBL Milan, 30+ mortars, and in particular 16 PzH2000 and 8 MLRS guided onto target by drones?

... especially if we allow DPICM use

Edit: did they ever integrate those iirc 24 VAB HOT in the infantry companies instead of 24 VBL Milan?

 

[eckherl]

Mmm, I'd say it depends a lot on the specific makeup of the brigade.

Might be a bit more difficult if facing the D/F-Brigade with their 36 AMX-10RC, 6 Wiesel TOW, 40+ VBL Milan, 30+ mortars, and in particular 16 PzH2000 and 8 MLRS guided onto target by drones?

... especially if we allow DPICM use

Edit: did they ever integrate those iirc 24 VAB HOT in the infantry companies instead of 24 VBL Milan?

Yep, most likely the case also with new TO&E for U.S light forces at present day, test was conducted in the early nineties.

Still though even with this type of force structure attempting to ward off a heavy force with modern assets at their disposal would be a challenge, less painful but still a challenge.

Did they not get clearance approval to switch over to Hot systems, I thought that happened last year.

 

[Waylander]

Sure, alot of integrated AT-Weapons help alot.
There is a reason why there are so many Javelins in the Striker Brigades and why our airborn units had so much AT-equipment when their main mission was to play the plug and stem the tide.
But some of the problems still remain.

Especially the tactical mobility which most of the time forces the light forces to do stay and die actions in the face of an armored attack.
Against a good opponent is damn difficult to perform a good delaying action and to fall back into the next line when the defender also has tanks and IFVs. Trying to do that with light forces in anything else then very restricted terrain is pure suicide against a good opponent.

I think we talked about that in other threads, too.
A light unit if equipped with proper means of transportation and alot of modern force multipliers as well as alot of available support assets is going to eat some 3rd world heavy unit alive.

But if you give the heavy unit the same amount of force multipliers and training and add to that the usual better support assets a heavy unit has it comes down to the light unit being at a severe disadvantage.
These nice modern gizmos like battlefield management systems, fire support networks, integrated UAV support etc. is nothing which is not also availabel for heavy units.

 

[eckherl]

Sure, alot of integrated AT-Weapons help alot.
There is a reason why there are so many Javelins in the Striker Brigades and why our airborn units had so much AT-equipment when their main mission was to play the plug and stem the tide.
But some of the problems still remain.

Especially the tactical mobility which most of the time forces the light forces to do stay and die actions in the face of an armored attack.
Against a good opponent is damn difficult to perform a good delaying action and to fall back into the next line when the defender also has tanks and IFVs. Trying to do that with light forces in anything else then very restricted terrain is pure suicide against a good opponent.

I think we talked about that in other threads, too.
A light unit if equipped with proper means of transportation and alot of modern force multipliers as well as alot of available support assets is going to eat some 3rd world heavy unit alive.

But if you give the heavy unit the same amount of force multipliers and training and add to that the usual better support assets a heavy unit has it comes down to the light unit being at a severe disadvantage.
These nice modern gizmos like battlefield management systems, fire support networks, integrated UAV support etc. is nothing which is not also availabel for heavy units.

All a light force factor is going to do against a modern heavy force structure is fight a delay action scenario with a whole lotta hit and run, they will not be able to hold much of any type of terrian for a extended length of time. I think that it is comical when I made a statement on another thread about armored wheeled vehicles having a tough go of it due to the cross country terrian located in both theaters in the Middle East, (wheeled armored vehicles will have just as much of a tough go of it in a European or Asian theater of operations also), you cannot stay on the roads for ever, people thought I was nuts when I gave them that observation, and now what is the verdict. Any ways it looks like the British and Canadians will go back to placing emphasis on tracked vehicles.

 

[OPSSG]

I was involved in a test of a light infantry brigade, we attacked them with an armored battalion (56 tanks) and totally wiped them out in less than 2 hours, scratch using Humvees and other wheeled assets as a primary means of transportation will mixing it up with a opponent.

Just my 2 cents, as a former conscript...

If this was the scenario, then I would say the light infantry brigade's staff officers would have failed at the planning level by failing to ask for an attachment of divisional armour or anti-armour assets. In my reckoning, our light infantry brigade would NOT have enough organic anti-armour elements (in our case, we use the Spike anti-tank missile) to be more than a speed bump (against an armored battalion of 56 tanks) - poor relative combat power in anti-tank elements even in complex terrain. To put it simply, the collection plan at brigade level would have failed.

I agree that all a light force is going to do against a modern heavy force structure is fight a delay action. The problem is that light infantry can't run away fast enough (even if we are planning a hit and run), unless we have a fantastic obstacle plan at successive delay lines coupled with solid air and artillery support, in pre-planned kill boxes and in complex terrain (not favouring tanks).

BTW, for the exercise, did your tank battalion have it's own engineer element (please indulge my rather noob question)?

IMO, if a light infantry brigade is going to face a tank battalion, we need to plan to make it an urban warfare fight, to stand a chance of holding ground.

 

[SGMilitary]

Typo. I meant Amx 13 SM1 tanks.

You are right, current SAF Leopard 2A4s inventory is 132.

Possibly up to 192 for total inventory...taking into consideration for the

replacement of at least 350 AMX13-SM1 & 60 M60A3 MBTs currently

under SAF inventory.


Regards.

 

[Waylander]

@Eckherl
I remember that and I defenitely was on your side.
IMHO that is something that the "hail to the new light forces" crowd doesn't understand.
Nobody who wants to retain some heavy units wants to get back to a full cold war setting which is oriented to fighting in the Fulda Gap.
But getting to an all light and medium force structure just for the sake of some (IMHO overrated) deployment and low-lever conflict advantages is also favouring an unbalanced force structure with all the disadvantages that come with it.

@OPSSG
At least in Germany we get combat engineer support attached from company level upwards.
IIRC it is not different with the US Army.


In the end it all depends on the country and there are many countries out there (like Singapore) who should benefit from a force structure balanced to the light side with lots of support assets.
But it is hard to find a country where it is a good idea to rely solely on light forces in the face of a possible threat.

 

[DavidDCM]

You are right, current SAF Leopard 2A4s inventory is 132.

Possibly up to 192 for total inventory...taking into consideration for the

replacement of at least 350 AMX13-SM1 & 60 M60A3 MBTs currently

under SAF inventory.


Regards.

SGMilitary, I'm not aware of the M60A3 being in Singapore's inventory. Is that actually true?
All I know is that you have the M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle which is based on the M60, but not a real tank. If you're up against light infantry, the M728 of course can be used like a tank in the infantry support role to a certain degree.