Where do you get these bizarre fantasies? If Malaysia & Indonesia have fallen into the hands of the sort of people who'd try invading Thailand, Singapore would be hunkering down & appealing to her other allies, i.e. the USA, Australia, etc., not joining in the doomed, insane, adventure. BTW, what would be the motive for this hypothetical invasion of Thailand?
Singapore to acquire Leopard 2A4s
- Thread starter kotay
- Start date
It would be an absolute head phuque for australia. we have treaties and support agreements with the malays, sings, thais and indons.
we would (as would also UK and NZ) be diplomatically smashing on doors well before this hit the "forces crossing the rubicon" stage.
Plus I don't see the Singapore military as using Russian TO, but then again I have been wrong before.
well, you're not wrong in this instance.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
FutureTank
Banned Member
Ok, maybe the invasion of Thailand was a bit remote so far as scenarios go.
As far as using 'Russian' org for tank units...
Why are tank units organised the way they are?
If a platoon of L2s encounters a platoon of T-55s, how many L2s would be required to deal with the platoon of T-55s (even T-55Ms)?
What about T-62, T-72, T-80, T-80U, T-90, T-90C
Let's assume all the above tanks are crewed by conscripts...but what if they are crewed by regulars?
The reason Russians originally had 3-tank platoons is because they found with expereince that platoon commanders are only effective with controlling 3 crews.
Given all the equipment installed in CURRENT MBTs, platoon commanders are only required because the lethality of a platoon has far surpassed platoons of WW2. So why not a 3-tank platoon for Singapore? Three L2s can certainly do the work of 4 Centurians.
This is why I think 1 Armoured in Australia should go with 13-tank squadrons, and have 4 squadrons like a regiment is supposed to have. This allows for 7 vehicles in Pucka, A-C field squadrons and D squadron in the training role.
As far as using 'Russian' org for tank units...
Why are tank units organised the way they are?
If a platoon of L2s encounters a platoon of T-55s, how many L2s would be required to deal with the platoon of T-55s (even T-55Ms)?
What about T-62, T-72, T-80, T-80U, T-90, T-90C
Let's assume all the above tanks are crewed by conscripts...but what if they are crewed by regulars?
The reason Russians originally had 3-tank platoons is because they found with expereince that platoon commanders are only effective with controlling 3 crews.
Given all the equipment installed in CURRENT MBTs, platoon commanders are only required because the lethality of a platoon has far surpassed platoons of WW2. So why not a 3-tank platoon for Singapore? Three L2s can certainly do the work of 4 Centurians.
This is why I think 1 Armoured in Australia should go with 13-tank squadrons, and have 4 squadrons like a regiment is supposed to have. This allows for 7 vehicles in Pucka, A-C field squadrons and D squadron in the training role.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Somehow, I don't think Singapore is too worried about her neighbours submarines.
Singapore also has had a floating stock of modified centurions (numbers vary from 150-300) for a number of years - they were never made public out of political sensitivity issues. They had Israeli modified MBT's stashed away for 20+ years.
Again, I doubt that they're too worried about what their neighbours do.
I think the notion that Malaysia or Singapore need to outdo each other on an asset vs asset basis is a distant idea in the minds of those who count.
anyway - back to the subject at hand
I am no expert on armour warfare but I think 4 tank platoon operates in 2 group of 2 tanks in each group in term of command and control.
The 1st group is one tank with the PC and the other tank follow his lead.
The 2nd group is one tank with the PL Sgt and the other tank follow his lead.
If the army has high calbre NCO, the C&C should not be affected in fact more efficient than 3 tanks Platoon.
BTW, arty's ICM cannot take out MBT , at most APC.
The 1st group is one tank with the PC and the other tank follow his lead.
The 2nd group is one tank with the PL Sgt and the other tank follow his lead.
If the army has high calbre NCO, the C&C should not be affected in fact more efficient than 3 tanks Platoon.
BTW, arty's ICM cannot take out MBT , at most APC.
A little misunderstood here. M'sia were the one being suspect putting themselves in to compete of Subs. While IMO 48 PT-91 do mean something for the Singaporean in the same case.
weasel1962
New Member
Deleted
Last edited:
Another report with interview with SG Def Minister stated that all the SM1 will not retired even when the Leo 2s are operational.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/12/asian-tiger-ordering-leopards/index.php
Afterall , he can't say to retire any MBT since there is no MBTs in SAF officially.
As for PT-91, there are some ERA blocks which covered the frontal half of the top of turret,not sure about the other half.
Which make it a very "small" target plus spread of ICM, quite low Kprob.
Anyway with the introduction of top attack AT weapon,nowadays most MBT has additional armour at the top.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Well, from what i know, Erawa-2 reactive armor is kinda semi-passive armor. While its design purpose is to protect from "high speed object" and chemical explosion which exactly describe a missile attack.
Although tandem warhead claim to "solved" reactive armor, even battle proved Javelin has not been fire on a reactive armor. Furthermore, Erawa does has a property to determine false attack, plus that negative KE field generate by reactive armor will decrease incoming object's KE which means lower penetration and might had a chance to blow it away entirely.
However, both Erawa/Era vs Javelin/Spike/Hellfire had never happened.
IMO defender is always passive and inefficiency, while striker on an initiative position:nutkick . Even M1s or Leopard's (some claim to have) 900mm equivalent armor would have to pray for god under fire of a "simple" RPG.(what would they think when seeing Merkava lost 50 and recover 6 thats 12%!!!)
Anyway, I would say tank+wide spread personnel formation is the best way to protect a tank. But, by then, Armor vehicle should protect personnels and it is getting confusing :shudder BTW, which ICM are you referring too? Is it an anti-tank rifle?
oskarm did posted something about another reactive armor, similar to Erawa which was also developed by the Polish engineers.
From the information he got shown that it had a remarkable result over Panzerfaust 3 armed with 3T and improved 3-T600 tandem HEAT warheads.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=52330
From the information he got shown that it had a remarkable result over Panzerfaust 3 armed with 3T and improved 3-T600 tandem HEAT warheads.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=52330
I think that any place not covered by ERAWA can be penetrated by ICMs.
A year ago tests of Spike were taken in Poland on T-72 (M1?). The turret was penetrated in its thickest area. I wonder why they didn't test Spike on ERAWA.
ERAWA-2 is an ordinary ERA.
Names of Polish armours are acronyms, so ERAWA means Exploding Reactive Armour (WA - are initials of its main designer), so CAWA stands for Ceramic Armour.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Thanks for explaining!
oh! thanks.
oskarm & weasel1962,
Me and my friends are doing a project on reviewing our new tank PT-91M. Could you guys help us out for the information? I know it's off topic, but I cant find a pm service here. Should I leave down my email?