Singapore's new Anti-Armour Weapon

N

noves

New Member
The Singapore bought the weapon clearly because they afraid of my country because my country just bought 62 new tanks.....
 
A

adyn

New Member
noves said:
The Singapore bought the weapon clearly because they afraid of my country because my country just bought 62 new tanks.....
Click to expand...
S'pore seldom buy off the shelf, we produce it locally with some help from certain defence companies.What is there to be afraid of, a second hand tank that is being "refurbish".Fire 1 matador at the engine and it is deem useless.
 
D

Ding

Member
before any of us Malaysian and Singaporean go into some chest-thumping nationalistic fervour...

noves... get your facts straight. We bought 48 PT91M tanks not 62 unless you include the amoured recovery vehicles, armoured engineer vehicles and armoured bridging vehicles. And no, I dont think singapore is 'afraid' of our tanks. and no, by the same margin, we did not buy the tanks in response of singapore's tanks also.

adyn... also get your fact straight, the PT91M is not second hand. they are brand new. of course some might harp about them being based on the T72 but the amount of upgrading and modification and changes makes them different from "baseline" T72. Something like your f-15SG, would you call them second hand???
 
A

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
I believe the Iraqi T-72 don't have a level of protection that PT-91M. for one, it has no ERA protection. the reports i heard also stated that Iraqi T-72 use obsolete russian made fire control system, unlike PT-91M which use the latest SAGEM made ballistic computer.
 
R

renjer

New Member
noves said:
The Singapore bought the weapon clearly because they afraid of my country because my country just bought 62 new tanks.....
Click to expand...
Please! Not everything Singapore does is because of Malaysia.
 
O

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Would ERA be usefull against 30mm DU rounds? Sure it would work against the first few but most of the incoming would hit the general area, lets say the side. Has the normal armour been upgraded significantly from the original T72?
 
T

tankee1981

New Member
Aussie Digger said:
Normally for heavier anti-armour weapons they do, but this system is designed for sole operator use, like the LAW90, AT-4 or M72 LAW rocket. It's a waste of what exactly? A useless metal tube? Single shot anti-armour weapons are normally designed for the firer to throw away the entire weapon after it's been fired, sightin/firing mechanism included...

This is done to help try and reduce the burden of the poor infantryman who has to carry the damn things. What's the point of carrying around a now useless object? If it's stil bothering you, maybe you could petition the Singapore Army to recycle the tubes? :D:
Click to expand...
Actually the role of the MATADOR in Singapore Army is as a LAW. We have 2 LAW gunners in each infantry section. We have dedicated anti-armour weapons at battalion level with the good old Carl Gustav and Spike missiles(used to be Milan) at divisional level. So it will be alright for the MATADOR to be disposable as they are heavy and bulky. We Asian conscripts are generally smaller in build.

Yes, we do recycle them at least i know they do to the older Armbrust-HEAT, we will repaint the empty tubes to light blue after live firing to simulate a real MATADOR for the soldiers during training.
 
C

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The Matador, like the Armbrust, the SAR-80, assault rifle, Ultimax 100, FH 88 155mm howitzer and so on and so on.... are NOT invented by Singaporeans.

I am as nationalistic a Singaporean as any but let's not kid ourselves. Many Singapore-made weapons are technology bought "off the shelf" like the Armbrust (German), Matador (German), Ultimax (from American Jim Sullivan) and SAR-80 (from UK Sterling). While some are developed with help from friendly nations like the FH-88 with help from Israel.

Even the SAR-21 is rumoured to be developed togehter with Israel's TAR-21.

This is not a criticism but merely pointing out a fact.
 
C

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
tankee1981 said:
Actually the role of the MATADOR in Singapore Army is as a LAW. We have 2 LAW gunners in each infantry section. We have dedicated anti-armour weapons at battalion level with the good old Carl Gustav and Spike missiles(used to be Milan) at divisional level. So it will be alright for the MATADOR to be disposable as they are heavy and bulky. We Asian conscripts are generally smaller in build.

Yes, we do recycle them at least i know they do to the older Armbrust-HEAT, we will repaint the empty tubes to light blue after live firing to simulate a real MATADOR for the soldiers during training.
Click to expand...

I could almost hear a collective moan of despair when riflemen are introduced to this heavy and bulky Matador.

As a former rifleman who's job was to carry an antique PRC-77 radioset weighing 14kg with spare battery, I know what I am talking about.

Now imagine this long and bulky 9kg Matador strapped to you on a typical 8km movement to contact through the forests at night, and then at dawn doing fire movement, jumping up from a comms trench of climbing through a window during contact.

What's the point of saying we have the lightest SAW, the lightest howitzer this or that etc etc when we load 2 members of each section with a bulky 9kg tube?
 
T

tankee1981

New Member
Ah Yes, the PRC-77! It is indeed very heavy but its extremely rugged too!

I wonder how they do fire movement with the heavier and bulkier Matador nowadays...:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top