Militaries that should have advanced tanks

[fylr71]

Singapore which has a very modern and technologically advanced armed forces includes

Army: Bionix IFV
Terrax wheeled IFV
SSPH self propelled howitzer
Pegasus light howitzer

Navy: Lafayette type stealth frigates
Vastergotland submarines with air independent propulsion

Air Force: F-16 C/D Block 52/52+
F-15 SG (advanced version of F-15E)

Very surprising that their main battle tank is a modified Centurion tank. They could upgrade to the Leopard 2A4 which Germany is selling cheaply.

Taiwan

The Ground forces of Taiwan mostly have outdated equipment with the exception of the M109 paladin and the CM-31 and CM-32

Navy: Lafayette type stealth frigates
Knox class destroyers
Perry class frigates
Kuang Hua V stealth corvettes
They are also expected to aquire Aegis type destroyers
Possible develpoment of advanced submarines

Air Force: F-CK Ching Quo indigenous defense fighter
F-16
Mirage 2000-5

Given the advanced military equipment of these two countries it is surprising that neither possess a modern main battle tank.

 

[aaaditya]

as far as singapore is concerned ,being a small island it does not require battle tanks.

i dont see the singapore armed forces to be the aggressors,their role is intended to defend singapore from an attack,battle tanks are excellent for attack roles,but suffer a serious limitations in defence roles particularly in an urban setting.

also modern main battle tanks require large areas for training,and infrastructure for storage of ammo and fuel dumps and the area of singapore is very small.

 

[Stimpy75]

In case of singapore:there is not much room to operate an advanced tank!
as you know,singapore is a big city,not much room to operate a tank in the classic way,when you look at iraq,the US forces use more the lighter type of vehicles like Stryker,M1117 and M2....lighter vehicle have a better use at these circumstances.

Taiwan:it´s a big island with many hills,not the best ground for high mobile tank battles,although the tanks they currently use are really weak,M48,M60 a mixture of both and M41....but first their "enemy" PLA have the problem to get their tanks on the island,so Air Force and Navy are more important to Taiwan.The same can be apllied to Singapore.
That´s my 2 cents.
Cheers

 

[aaaditya]

with respect to taiwn,i believe taiwan has some us designed battle tanks,however the situation for taiwan is slightly different when compared to singapore ,taiwan is larger,faces a greater threat(from china) ,the possibility of chinese invasion(china has battle tanks,and is now developing an amphibious capability),taiwan woul require tanks and tank destroyers to counter the chinese battle tanks in any future chinese invasion.

 

[aaaditya]

nation have to take the following into considerations before acquiring battle tanks:

1)current and future threat scenarios.

in case of singapore ,battle tanks are not required,since they are not going to be invaded anytime in the near future ,however the same cannot be said about taiwan who are in constant fear of a chinese invasion.

2)territorial area:

the countries also have to take into consideration the territorial area,since battle tanks consume a large amount of space,they also require greater infrastructure,like training facilities,maintainence facilities ,ammunition dumps ,fuelling facilities,these would be prime targets for the enemy and hence if located near crowded areas can result in collateral damage.singapore suffers a serious limitation of area and hence has to deploy its fighter aircrafts abroad,but combat aircrafts can travel 1000 of kilometers in an hour ,over land and water and can be summoned immediately in the event of a war,but tanks if deployed abroad require time.taiwan can afford battle tanks since they have more space than singapore and a more justified threat scenario.

3)funding:

battle tanks are perhaps the most expensive technology for an army,the purchase cost is in most cases are high,require additional funding for setting up training ,maintainence and tetsing facilities,also battle tanks are highly maintainence intensive and require frequent upgrades for their technology to remain current and valid,all these result in a lot of expenses,both singapore and taiwan are rich enough to afford them.

4)the best form of defence according to geographical features:

both singapore and taiwan being islands can be better defended by naval ships and fighter aircrafts than by battle tanks which can neither fly in the air nor sail in the water.and hence the money spent on the purchase and maintainence of battle tanks is better spent on acquiring fighter aircrafts and naval assets.

5)training and manpower:

battle tanks require a lot of manpower in the form of the tank and maintainence crew,these crew also needs to be trained in their respective fiels ,this is time and finance consuming ,also singapore and taiwan have a large number of conscripts in their army(temporary soldiers),who are not suitable for tank battle.

6)better alternatives:

light tanks destroyers like(jeep mounted anti tank missiles,light armoured vehicles equipped with missiles ,attack helicopetsr),provide multirole capabilities as well as comparable defensive and offensive capabilities as compared to battle tanks,but are ligheter in weight,consume less fuel,require less space,require a relatively lesser number of skilled manpower and are easier to tansport.

 

[aaaditya]

In case of singapore:there is not much room to operate an advanced tank!
as you know,singapore is a big city,not much room to operate a tank in the classic way,when you look at iraq,the US forces use more the lighter type of vehicles like Stryker,M1117 and M2....lighter vehicle have a better use at these circumstances.

Taiwan:it´s a big island with many hills,not the best ground for high mobile tank battles,although the tanks they currently use are really weak,M48,M60 a mixture of both and M41....but first their "enemy" PLA have the problem to get their tanks on the island,so Air Force and Navy are more important to Taiwan.The same can be apllied to Singapore.
That´s my 2 cents.
Cheers

exactly what i was trying to state,you have put it in a very simple manner,thats great.

also this is the reason why atatck helicopters would be more relevant to these countries than battle tanks.

 

[eckherl]

exactly what i was trying to state,you have put it in a very simple manner,thats great.

also this is the reason why atatck helicopters would be more relevant to these countries than battle tanks.

I agree with you on this, with the helicopter you have more roles that just hunting tanks.

 

[icelord]

Singapores forcus is more on Piracy at sea, as 80% of the worlds sea going freight passes through asia, Singapore is considered one of the safest passages to go through, as they do regular mine sweeps and Heavily patrol the waters along the Singapore Strait. They have recently upgraded their fleet with the formidable class still coming in, and have 2 Vastergotland subs from sweden to be completed in 2010.

 

[MG 3]

It has all to do with the typer of threats these counties face.

Singapore un-officially hates Malaysia and Ina. In their senario tanks do not fit in bacause of limited land area (fire a round and might fly out of the country) and what ever they do their tank forces will never be able to defend their country. What they need and are doing is concerntrating on Naval forces.

Tiwan, well I dont know much about them except for the fact that no matter what they do they will never realestically be able to stop China in taking over them in the long run.

 

[eckherl]

It has all to do with the typer of threats these counties face.

Singapore un-officially hates Malaysia and Ina. In their senario tanks do not fit in bacause of limited land area (fire a round and might fly out of the country) and what ever they do their tank forces will never be able to defend their country. What they need and are doing is concerntrating on Naval forces.

Tiwan, well I dont know much about them except for the fact that no matter what they do they will never realestically be able to stop China in taking over them in the long run.

Yes they will - it`s called America.

 

[vedang]

gud 1...

Yes they will - it`s called America.

......

 

[Waylander]

Conscriptors are not suitable for tank battle?
Why?

 

[eckherl]

Conscriptors are not suitable for tank battle?
Why?

Please authenicate your question a little more please.

 

[Waylander]

Sorry, should have made this more clear.
I asked the question because of this sentence by aaadytia:

battle tanks require a lot of manpower in the form of the tank and maintainence crew,these crew also needs to be trained in their respective fiels ,this is time and finance consuming ,also singapore and taiwan have a large number of conscripts in their army(temporary soldiers),who are not suitable for tank battle.

 

[aaaditya]

Sorry, should have made this more clear.
I asked the question because of this sentence by aaadytia:

battle tanks require a lot of manpower in the form of the tank and maintainence crew,these crew also needs to be trained in their respective fiels ,this is time and finance consuming ,also singapore and taiwan have a large number of conscripts in their army(temporary soldiers),who are not suitable for tank battle.

conscripts are basically civilians who are required by their government to serve some time with their armed forces ,maybe for some some months after which they return to their civilian lifes,but professional soldiers are soldiers tghrouughout the year and work towards improving their skills throughout the year,tanks are particularly complex technology which requires frequnet training and excercises for the crew so that they can retain their skills,i believe that only the russian t series of tanks are simple enough and require very less training for use by conscripts,tanks are much more complex and technologically intensive than light tank destroyers etc.

 

[gf0012-aust]

conscripts are basically civilians who are required by their government to serve some time with their armed forces ,maybe for some some months after which they return to their civilian lifes,but professional soldiers are soldiers tghrouughout the year and work towards improving their skills throughout the year,tanks are particularly complex technology which requires frequnet training and excercises for the crew so that they can retain their skills,i believe that only the russian t series of tanks are simple enough and require very less training for use by conscripts,tanks are much more complex and technologically intensive than light tank destroyers etc.

I'm curious as to why you think conscripts are less competent with reference to Singapore.

Singapore has a conscript army - and they are a very very good outfit. They also have between 150-200 Tempest (very much modernised Centurions with both Israeli and localised mods) MBT's. Singaporean doctrine is closely related to Israeli ALS warfare doctrine - and I pity the country that decides to poke them in the nose. They would bite off a bit more than they could choose...

 

[aaaditya]

I'm curious as to why you think conscripts are less competent with reference to Singapore.

Singapore has a conscript army - and they are a very very good outfit. They also have between 150-200 Tempest (very much modernised Centurions with both Israeli and localised mods) MBT's. Singaporean doctrine is closely related to Israeli ALS warfare doctrine - and I pity the country that decides to poke them in the nose. They would bite off a bit more than they could choose...

iam not saying that conscripts are incompetent ,my general assumption is that not being full time professional soldiers they cannot devote their full attention towards developing their skills in tank warfare.

 

[Waylander]

If you are not involved in oversea missions you are for sure able to have conscriptors which are able of operating a tank unit at its edge.

Many NATO countries did this during cold war and just talk to some US tankmen who trained against german, danish, dutch, etc tank units.
Taiwan has now conscriptors which serve for 18 month and from 2008 on they are going to serve for 12 month.
This is enough time to train gunners, drivers and loaders.
Remember that the tank commanders are no conscriptors.

Have a look at this. This text shows that a conscriptors army is able to have a good tank force.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_98-12_a7ct3q98.htm
It also shows some weak points of it but in the end this article shows that it is possible if you have good leaders and tactics.
Remember that conscriptors are often enough a little bit more smart than their counterparts in professional armed forces just because every kind of guy enters the army as a Private not only the ones who are not able start a seargents or officers career.

 

[eckherl]

If you are not involved in oversea missions you are for sure able to have conscriptors which are able of operating a tank unit at its edge.

Many NATO countries did this during cold war and just talk to some US tankmen who trained against german, danish, dutch, etc tank units.
Taiwan has now conscriptors which serve for 18 month and from 2008 on they are going to serve for 12 month.
This is enough time to train gunners, drivers and loaders.
Remember that the tank commanders are no conscriptors.

Have a look at this. This text shows that a conscriptors army is able to have a good tank force.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_98-12_a7ct3q98.htm
It also shows some weak points of it but in the end this article shows that it is possible if you have good leaders and tactics.
Remember that conscriptors are often enough a little bit more smart than their counterparts in professional armed forces just because every kind of guy enters the army as a Private not only the ones who are not able start a seargents or officers career.

So correct - the stronger the leader, the better the troops are.

 

[Waylander]

Jup.

I am also not a friend of the thought that baptism of fire is the main factor if you want to show how effective an army is at mechanized warfare.
Just look at the gulf war of '91.
How many of the participating US, British, French, etc. combat units were experienced in real mechanized battles.
And they really did a good job there.
Training is the main factor. Training of personal operations and leadership operations.
Another thing that works in favor of conscriptors armies is pure manpower.
Especially small countries are just not able to operate a big non conscript army. By using a conscriptors army you are able to increase you army in a short period of time by using material in depots.
And countries like Taiwan and Singapore need these well trained conscriptors in time of war just because they are facing much bigger potential enemies.