The Indonesian Army
- Thread starter DavidDCM
- Start date
I understand the whole idea behind installing a 90mm Cockerill on the Scorpion but the extra weight really takes a toll on the hull and the engine, the turret is not stabilised and when firing on uneven ground, the Scorpion is prone to tilting. In the case of the Malaysian army, when it ordered its Scorpions in 1981, there was no other choice as it couldn't afford a larger tracked vehicle fitted with a 105mm gun so the Scorpion was a compromise. My believe is that a 30mm auto cannon would be more practical. Yes, it can't deal with stuff like fixed fortifications or bunkers if these are encountered in any future conflict but then these can be dealt with by other means. Jordan's KADB has designed a Scorpion upgrade package with a turret armed with a 30mm and a launcher for the Kornet.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #423
The British themselves have replaced their Scorpion's guns with a 30 mm autocannon, making it the Scimitar.
It appears that Malaysia has come to the same conclusion as you, because their Scorpions see only very limited use today (only in the para armor squadron afaik) and the Sibmas will basically be replaced by the 30-mm autocannon variant of the AV-8.
Indonesia, against that, seems happy with the 90 mm gun. They have the Scorpion, the PT-76, the V-150 all still in active service and all are armed with the 90 mm gun. And they already ordered another batch of 90-mm-turrets from South Korea which will purportedly be installed on the gun version of the Anoa.
Thus it seems Malaysia and Indonesia have different opinions when it comes to the Cockerill gun, and I wont dare to judge which one is better. Both seem reasonable to me.
It appears that Malaysia has come to the same conclusion as you, because their Scorpions see only very limited use today (only in the para armor squadron afaik) and the Sibmas will basically be replaced by the 30-mm autocannon variant of the AV-8.
Indonesia, against that, seems happy with the 90 mm gun. They have the Scorpion, the PT-76, the V-150 all still in active service and all are armed with the 90 mm gun. And they already ordered another batch of 90-mm-turrets from South Korea which will purportedly be installed on the gun version of the Anoa.
Thus it seems Malaysia and Indonesia have different opinions when it comes to the Cockerill gun, and I wont dare to judge which one is better. Both seem reasonable to me.
Gadjah Mada
New Member
Indonesian military may have different requirements to those of Malaysia army. Indonesian marines operate their BVP-2 with 30 mm autocannon for anti aircraft role for their armored unit. PT-76 is considered a battle proven among Indonesian armored vehicles which has served from Papua campaign in the 60s to Acheh offensive in 2000s, and the marines like them as they are. It seems it suits their need.
I think TNI-AD also took a lesson from them when they procured the Scorpions. And the Scorpions were used in Acheh until the British forbade to use them and replaced with Pindad APR.
Indonesian military have very different "field experience" with either Malaysia or Jordan army.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
90 mm Cockerill gun in my opinion is also a compromise. As you have stated, Indonesia so far put 90 mm Cockerel gun on 3 platform Scorpion, PT-76 and V-150 (and can be 4 if Anoa Gun Versions do come to fruition). It's not a high velocity gun (thus not really suitable for anti tank gun), which indicate more as fire support gun.
Which is suitable at least for TNI-AD need so far, since they're more concern for fire support capabilities of their Tanks, then Anti-Armor. Their changing policy to anti armor only come recently with the induction of MBT to their Inventory and also more advance ATGM (which so far only being told as plan to order, but no concrete evidence which one already being order).
As the amount of Alvis Scorpion, I put 100 base on old Tempo magazine article, which stated Pindad Director at that time, indicating their first experience with Tracked vehicles mostly come during their work in assembling 100 Alvis Scorpion tanks. whether it's only Alvis Scorpion or included Stormer, that I haven't found more reliable info yet.
Gadjah Mada
New Member
Ananda, may be this blog is less reliable:Keluarga Tank Scorpion di Jajaran TNI AD | Bpn16's Blog
but it mentions the types Scorpion tanks in TNI-AD Inventory. It said that only 50 Scorpion light tanks available, while the rest are either Stormer APC or Stormer bridge. However Wikipedia data showed 100 Scorpion tanks and around 70 Stormers. It is confusing though. But considering its procurement process involving Suhartos family, I believe the number must be lower for their commission
About the Cockerill cannon, since it was made in Belgium, I wonder whether this was part of the agreement that included FN FNC (SS-1) and FFAR rocket during Habibie`s era. Do you have any information about this Ananda?
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Some deal especially concerning defense procurement event in Soeharto era still clouded in rumors and mystery. Some already highlighted, but not all. Like in Scorpion deal, it's been highlighted by some media (like Tempo) that the deal involving Suharto Children business. However, blaming everything on Soeharto era to his children business, seems also one of the favorite scapegoat especially by some parties that still have influence today.
Before Scorpion come to hand, the Min-Def at that time actually approaching the German for 100 ex Bundeswher Leo 1-A5. Ironically, some ex-Generals that approaching the German for MBT deal also the same guys (most already in Political Parties or connected to Political Factions now) that show opposition for Leo 2 deal in here (stating the 'famous' argument that MBT weight can't be sustain effectively by Indonesian terrain). Just to show some hypocrisy on Politics in Indonesia today even with improving accountability conditions.
In short, the deal fell through (officially) due not enough budget, and the deal then replace for Scorpion and Stromer from Alvis. Again the rumors opposed the official position, stating that there are enough fund for Leo 1, but not enough 'deals' the German willing to give to sweeten the deal. In short, there're more parties involved and not just Soeharto Children that need to be approached.
If that particular rumors is true, then 100 Alvis Scorpion + 70 Stormer like Wiki says can have the merit also, since 'perhaps' it's actually the same size of deal for 100 Leo 1 were at the 90's. Again 'pure' speculations, since the actual number of Scorpion and Stormer are vary from source to source.
I personally doubt that the Cockeril deal, related to other weapons deal from Belgium, since seems the parties involve are varied. PT-76 uses Cockerill gun, seems related more to the packages that Israel's Minda offered on the upgrade for example. Anyway, if you see the specifications, and considering the Platform (Scorpion, PT-76, and V-150), the Cockerill gun did show that it's 'one' of the biggest gun those platform can effectively sustain as the role for fire support. In short I personally believe, the choice for Cockerill gun, more related to 'technical' consideration based on the role the users (TNI) aimed for their platform maximum capacity.
The Scorpion was a compromise from the very start. It was during a period when the army's focus was on counter insurgency, yet there was a requirement to better enable to army to also deal with external security. Under PERISTA, launched in 1979, 25 Scorpions, 25 Stormers, 186 Sibmas and some 450 Condors were signed for. The army's Armour Directorate originally, wanted something bigger, with a 105mm gun, but as there were no extra funds and 90mmm guns were already operated, on the V-150's, it settled on the Scorpion. The 25 Scorpions and 25 Stormers [12 fitted with a 20mm Oerlikon and 13 fitted with twin GPMGs in a TH-11 turret] were operated by the 11 Armoured Regiment but are now under the Airborne Armoured Squadron. The only other alternatives I can think of, to perform the armed recce role, would be the Fennek or the BMD. Anything else would be to big. As the Malaysian army now has MBTS, a well as Adnans and MIFVs in several variants, that can perform the direct and indirect fire role, I don't see a need anymore for a 90mm armed platform, but then that's just my opinion. It is also interesting to note that the army - for whatever reason - did not decide to fit a 90mm Cockerill on its AV-8s.
Difference requirements aside, the fact remains that fitted with the Cockerill, for which the hull of the Scorpion was never designed to take, the Scorpion has become a slow, lumbering vehicle. It can't fire on the move and it can't fire on uneven ground because the blast might result in the vehicle tipping over. In Malaysia's case, the 90mm armed Scorpion was intended to perform the fire support role and armed recce - in 1981 when the order was placed there was no funds for a larger vehicle and there weren't even future plans MBTs - it was understood that 90mm would be the largest vehicle mounted gun to be operated. Don't get me wrong, I like the Scorpion. If fitted with a lighter weapon its relatively fast, has a very low ground pressure and can operate in places where other AFVS can't.
On the contrary, I think the experiences of both are similar. For many years the main threat was lighly armed insurgents that did not have 'heavy' weapons [or not in quantity] and the main role of AFVs were for convoy escort and the protection of vital installations - not to be used as part an all arms combat formations. Out of curiousity, has there ever been a case, in the past, of GAM rebels targeting Korps Marinir or TNI-AD AFVS with shoulder launched weapons? Were land mines used by GAM against AFVs?During counter insurgency operations fought against Permesta and nationalist groups in the 1950's and 1960's, in places such as Sumatra or Sulawesi, were any AFVS destroyed?
With Indonesia, the Scorpion too was intended to perform the fire support role and armed recce but where there still future plans in place to get MBTs, after the idea of Leopards 1s had been dropped, when the Scorpions were ordered? Was it intended for the Scorpion to operate alongside future MBTs, to be used for lower intensity threats with the MBTS being used for more serious stuff or was the 90mm Cockerill intended to be the largest vehicle mounted gun in the TNI-AD for the forseeble future?
Last edited:
Ananda
The Bunker Group
I agree Strum, so far TNI-AD only deal with Armed Insurgency, which most opposition can only muster light armed and sometimes (in case of GAM Aceh according to some media) RPG. Thus Light Armor Vehicles is considered 'enough' for time being.
For Scorpion 90 mm Cockerill gun, well I haven't found info or picture that showing TNI Scorpion can conduct firing on the move. The picture I found so far show them conducting firing exercise from fixed/stationary position. However the manufacturer sites CMI Defence – Products – Cockerill LCTS90 Weapon System (90 mm) - Cockerill Maintenance & Ingénierie claim that their turret was light weight enough and their 90 mm gun was low pressure enough that made them both suitable for 10 - 20 ton armored vehicle class. Thus technically Cockerill 90 mm is still suitable enough for Scorpion chassis.
Anyway, I do believe both TNI and TDM never intended to use Scorpion 90 as suitable anti-armor platform. At least for TNI-AD as I have mentioned on my previous post, they main intention for Scorpion is for Fire support (indirect) as (in my opinion) infantry operation support.
From what I gather, for Tank Operation, TNI seems more incline to rely with AMX 13, especially the 105mm ones. Again it's not a suitable platform, but it's more appropriate then Scorpion. As for MBT ambitions, well at the moment it's very clear with Leo 2 on their ambitions. Whether after the 90's fail attempt for MBT (with Leo 1), did they ever think for MBT again ? Well officially not until the last 2 years ago, unofficially off course I believe they always keep that ambitions.
What will become of Scorpion after Leo 2 come ? Well, they will be moved to outside Java. Seems the Cavalry battalions in Java will be equipped with MBT and Upgrade AMX 13-105 (plus the plan Pindad medium Tanks), while Scorpion and V-150 will be move to other islands. The Papuan Cavalry already equipped with V-150 so did the elements that bordered East Timor (plus old Alvis Saladin/Saracen). In short, Leo 2 will only come, when there're oppositions from another MBT or heavier armor from what presently the other islands cavalry equipped with. That's why the new build LST will be build to be able to transport MBT, so the MBT can have more vessels option to transport besides the 4 Banjarmasin Class LPD.
Ananda, the Scorpions can fire on the move but they are likely not to hit anything they aim at because the turret is not stabilised . I'm not sure about the AMX-13s though and as part of the NMDA upgrade, did the PT-76s receive a turret stabilisation system?
. I'm not sure about the AMX-13s though and as part of the NMDA upgrade, did the PT-76s receive a turret stabilisation system?
Last edited:
Ananda
The Bunker Group
All Tank can fire on the move, even the WW 2 Tanks can do that. Whether they can hit anything is another matter. Just like you say, the questions is the turret fully stabilized for that conditions. The CMI sites, claim that their turret is stabilized for the gunner and commander sites. I do not have enough justifiable claim from the users, if this mean they can shoot effectively on the move. Indonesian Scorpion use LCTS 90 turret, and I believe (based on the pictures only) the Malaysian ones also use LCTS 90. Again, no enough justification whether LCTS 90 can conduct firing on the move, since CMI claim that LCTS 90 is stabilized.Ananda, the Scorpions can fire on the move but they are likely not to hit anything they aim at because the turret is not stabilised
For AMX-13, I do say that TNI seems rely more on traditional work of Tank with AMX-13 (especially the 105 mm ones) than Scorpion 90, since the AMX-13 105 mm riffled gun provide higher velocity and more punch than Cokerill light weight 90 mm gun. Again it's not a Traditional anti-armor Tank (the AMX-13), but the AMX-13 105, still can be used in the tactics of ambush and hit and run. From seeing several video of AMX-13 105 in training, seems that tactic still the one being practise by TNI on their AMX-13 105. They depend much on sprint and flanking tactics, and not direct face to face tactics, when simulating anti-armor operations.
Well off course I could be wrong, after all I only judge base on some Video and small chats with the Tanks crew
The BMD? Why on earth? It's not even theoretically meant to be used that way... why not the BRM-3? That's a much more appropriate vehicle, and they actually use the BMP-3 chassis.
You're right. The only only reason I mentioned the BMD was due to its small size but yes, the BRM-3 would be much better suited for the recce role.
Off-topic but during the Cold War, apart from BRDMs and other wheeled vehicles, did the Soviet army use the BMP for recce work?
Gadjah Mada
New Member
Sorry, I`m not military professional, nor an expert, nor try to be one. Just a fanboy
Knowledge: Peristiwa pertempuran seroja
This is one example of the difference. I think Malaysian Army never experienced what TNI got in East Timor against well trained and well equipped Tropaz, even though rather small in number.
I believe TNI doctrine is also not exactly the same with malaysian army.
Last edited by a moderator:
The BRM-1 and BRM-2, derived from the BMP-1 and 2 respectively. It was a very simple and logical system.
Also the PT-76.
From 1968 to 1989, the Malaysian army was engaged in a counter insurgency campaign against the North Kalimantan Communist Party [NKCP] and the Communist Party of Malaya [CPM]. The key difference between this campaign and operations conducted in East Timor and Acheh by the TNI-AD was the terrain and the scope of the conflict but the challenges facing both armies was just as challenging.
The focus of the Malaysian army and the TNI-AD for many years was internal security, not external, and this was reflected, and still is, by the way both armies were organised and equipped. Both are currently in various stages of transition from being organised and equipped for low intensity counter insurgency ops to being able to handle external threats. The doctrine of both armies is shaped by their past experiences, as well as respective threat perceptions and operational requiements.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Some Pictures from Pindad new 4x4 Called Komodo, courtesy from Antara News Agency. This 4x4 is been expected for some time as the planed standard 4x4 for TNI and Police Special units.
Compared to previous 4x4 prototype called Garda, seems Komodo is larger, but still smaller then Renault Sherpa that already got permission for Pindad to produce. Sherpa seems more to fulfilled combat 'scout' duty, while this Komodo 4x4 going to handle standard 4x4 utilities job.
The schematic put 6 person as capacity with 2 in the front section (side by side) and 4 in the back (abreast). Seems to cramped to put 4 guys (even counting smaller Indonesian stature compared to western guys). I don't know if this is realistic enough to implement. I do still believe considering the size, the Vehicle will only take 4.
Compared to previous 4x4 prototype called Garda, seems Komodo is larger, but still smaller then Renault Sherpa that already got permission for Pindad to produce. Sherpa seems more to fulfilled combat 'scout' duty, while this Komodo 4x4 going to handle standard 4x4 utilities job.
The schematic put 6 person as capacity with 2 in the front section (side by side) and 4 in the back (abreast). Seems to cramped to put 4 guys (even counting smaller Indonesian stature compared to western guys). I don't know if this is realistic enough to implement. I do still believe considering the size, the Vehicle will only take 4.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
I Think TNI began really standardise the main assault riffle was only in 70's with M-16. What I mean before M-16 no other assault riffle dominate in quantity that can be called as standard assault riffle. If Soekarno did not fall in the 60's, perhaps AK can be sufficient in quantity as standard riffle.