Armour/PT-90/ERA related questions

[STURM]

Hello,

I have several armour/PT-90/ERA related questions that I hope armour enthusiasts will be able to help me with. Here goes...

1. Does the PT-90 have the same baseline armour protection as a late
model T-72?

2. Can the Konstrukta 2A46MS gun and Savan FCS, which is fitted to the
Malaysian PT-91M, fire the Refleks missile? Or are there integration
issues here?

3. Have there been any published reports about the effectiveness of ERAWA 2
against new generation KE penetrators? Overall, how does ERAWA 2
compare to Kontskt 5?

4. Without ERA, will the side and rear turret armour of tanks like the T-90,
T-72 and PT-91 protect against 30/20mm ammo?

Thank you.

[DavidDCM]

The T-72B is the latest and best protected T-72 version. The PT-91 is a modernization of the T-72M1 (export variant of T-72A), which is an older version. Thus, the PT-91's passive armor is inferior to a T-72B.

The Malaysians did not buy the Refleks, so I suspect that the ability to fire it was not integrated. In theory I guess it could be done.

I'm not sure if the ERAWA-2 was even designed to counter KE-threats. It's possibly just a tandem shaped-charge breaker with no big effect on KE. But I don't know for sure.

I don't know about the rear protection.

[Feanor]

The latest T-72 is the T-72B2. Although it features the same passive protection, it carries Relikt ERA.

Here's what I found on the ERAWA-1/2.

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3862.html

[eckherl]

The T-72B is the latest and best protected T-72 version. The PT-91 is a modernization of the T-72M1 (export variant of T-72A), which is an older version. Thus, the PT-91's passive armor is inferior to a T-72B.

The Malaysians did not buy the Refleks, so I suspect that the ability to fire it was not integrated. In theory I guess it could be done.

I'm not sure if the ERAWA-2 was even designed to counter KE-threats. It's possibly just a tandem shaped-charge breaker with no big effect on KE. But I don't know for sure.

I don't know about the rear protection.

25 and 30mm auto cannons with proper projectiles will penetrate the rear and side rears of tanks, we were dusting tanks during the Gulf War at the frontal quadrants using 25mm DU projectiles.

[cm07]

What is the likelihood of a 84mm M3 warhead being able to penetrate the PT-91M in the frontal Arc?

Or the ERAWA faced off against Top attack ATGMS like the MBT LAW / BILL 2?

[STURM]

The problem here is that on the PT-91 and other tanks, not just the hatches but other top parts of the turret are not protected by ERA.

I would be really interested to find out if its possible, using top attack systems like Spike, Bill and Javelin, to aim for specific areas like hatches? Apart from hatches, the engine grills, being unprotected, would also be ideal targets for top attack missiles, assuming you could aim for specific areas.

I've also find it interesting that Russian APS's like Shotra or Arena haven't been exported much. Apart from the price tag, this could be for technical issues also. I've read that Shotra is extrenely power hungry.

[STURM]

The problem here is that on the PT-91 and other tanks, not just the hatches but other top parts of the turret are not protected by ERA.

I would be really interested to find out if its possible, using top attack systems like Spike, Bill and Javelin, to aim for specific areas like hatches? Apart from hatches, the engine grills, being unprotected, would also be ideal targets for top attack missiles, assuming you could aim for specific areas.

I've also find it interesting that Russian APS's like Shotra or Arena haven't been exported much. Apart from the price tag, this could be for technical issues also. I've read that Shotra is extrenely power hungry.

[DavidDCM]

What is the likelihood of a 84mm M3 warhead being able to penetrate the PT-91M in the frontal Arc?

Old Carl Gustav single warhead? Extremely unlikely as basically every inch of the PT-91M front is covered by ERAWA tiles. No chance for such a small diameter shaped charge.

Or the ERAWA faced off against Top attack ATGMS like the MBT LAW / BILL 2?

Depends on whether the incoming penetrator will hit a tile. If it hits a tile, I guess ERAWA will defeat it, as those top-attack penetrators are relatively small, and afaik single, warheads.

[eckherl]

The problem here is that on the PT-91 and other tanks, not just the hatches but other top parts of the turret are not protected by ERA.

I would be really interested to find out if its possible, using top attack systems like Spike, Bill and Javelin, to aim for specific areas like hatches? Apart from hatches, the engine grills, being unprotected, would also be ideal targets for top attack missiles, assuming you could aim for specific areas.

I've also find it interesting that Russian APS's like Shotra or Arena haven't been exported much. Apart from the price tag, this could be for technical issues also. I've read that Shotra is extrenely power hungry.

You do realize that these missiles carry tandem projectiles and are designed specifically to deal with newer generation ERA. And no you cannot aim at specific parts of the tank with these systems.

[STURM]

So would it be right to say that even the latest versions of the Challenger, Abrams and Lerclec can be penetrated by top attack missiles with tandem warheads and that only an APS would make a difference?

It was not reported if the Malaysians were offered an APS to go with the
PT-91M. I suspect that funds would have been the main problem here.
Though live trials were done with the Savan 15 on a prototype PT-91 in 2001 in Poland, I'm not aware of any tests done by the Malaysians on ERAWA 2.

[eckherl]

So would it be right to say that even the latest versions of the Challenger, Abrams and Lerclec can be penetrated by top attack missiles with tandem warheads and that only an APS would make a difference?

It was not reported if the Malaysians were offered an APS to go with the
PT-91M. I suspect that funds would have been the main problem here.
Though live trials were done with the Savan 15 on a prototype PT-91 in 2001 in Poland, I'm not aware of any tests done by the Malaysians on ERAWA 2.

You are going to find that all current MBTs have weak top armor when it comes to dealing with modern top attack tandem projectiles. ERA benefits to the turret tops will help assist when dealing with those pesky special purpose artillery rounds. There is a reason why alot of countries have been reluctant to field APS systems be it soft or hard kill, they still need to be perfected for the task that they are intended to perform, this includes systems like Trophy and Iron Fist.

[nevidimka]

You are going to find that all current MBTs have weak top armor when it comes to dealing with modern top attack tandem projectiles. ERA benefits to the turret tops will help assist when dealing with those pesky special purpose artillery rounds. There is a reason why alot of countries have been reluctant to field APS systems be it soft or hard kill, they still need to be perfected for the task that they are intended to perform, this includes systems like Trophy and Iron Fist.

I think the only tank with a strong armour on top is the Black Eagle, but that is not in production.

[Tavarisch]

I think the only tank with a strong armour on top is the Black Eagle, but that is not in production.

You are obsessed with the 640 aren't you?:D

The only reason the BE has strong (in relative terms) top armor is because of the super-duper-crazy-gila (Exaggerating here :) ) ERA they're gonna put on it. Even then, ERA is one-shot use. After it's been activated, it's gonna be just like applique armor.

However, the 640 does have it's perks. A

I'd sure like to have the plans for it.

PS : What does IIRC mean, it's been bugging me since day one and I was a bit too chicken to ask at first.

[Waylander]

If I Remember Correctly. :)

[nevidimka]

You are obsessed with the 640 aren't you?:D

The only reason the BE has strong (in relative terms) top armor is because of the super-duper-crazy-gila (Exaggerating here :) ) ERA they're gonna put on it. Even then, ERA is one-shot use. After it's been activated, it's gonna be just like applique armor.

However, the 640 does have it's perks. A

I'd sure like to have the plans for it.

PS : What does IIRC mean, it's been bugging me since day one and I was a bit too chicken to ask at first.


IIRC = Intelligent IRC ( the chatting software)......j/k. its what he said above.

No, the Black Eagle's top armour was increased after the bad experiences that Russia encountered in Chechnya. You can see the hardened armour on top of the turret. They are not ERA's.

[STURM]

Looking forward to hearing opinions from eckherl and DavidDCM on this, because you guys seem to be very knowledgable on MBTs. No offense to everyone else, I appreciate all feedback received.

To increase protection levels against RPGs and 20mm/30mm, would it make any sense to install bar armour on the rear turret and rear of the PT-91?
I realise this will be difficult because of the storage rack behind the turret and fuel barrels behind the engine. I'm sure with custom made bar armour, a way could be found around this. It might entail redesigning the storage rack and installing the bar armour in front off the duel barrels, fixed to the hull.
Or perhaps installing applique armour on the areas mentioned, and accepting the weight penalties?

Future upgrades for the PT-91. Perhaps installing an OWS?

[DavidDCM]

Those bars (slat armor) will give you a chance only against RPGs and wont have any effect on 25/30 mm rounds.
That is why you should always take care that the enemy's big guns are in front of you :D

[Tavarisch]

I have an idea! We put one slat layer over two layers of ERA bricks!

That would definitely counter any of those pesky Tandem Warheads.

But, the weight of the tank........

[Feanor]

I have an idea! We put one slat layer over two layers of ERA bricks!

That would definitely counter any of those pesky Tandem Warheads.

But, the weight of the tank........

I would think the ERA would tear off the slat if it detonated.

[Tavarisch]

I would think the ERA would tear off the slat if it detonated.

Never said it would work properly. Anyway, it would be too impractical.

Slat should be used around the engine compartment though.

[STURM]

The main problem with installing bar armour to the rear of the engine deck is the 2 fuel tanks. It should be possible to fit a custom designed bar piece to the engine deck and then refitting the fuel tanks after that.

Whether its worth the trouble is the main question here. Such a modification would only be useful against shoulder launched weapons but would be useless against anything heavier.

[DavidDCM]

Are we talking about tanks in general or the PT-91 in particular? In my eyes such slat armor arrays are only useful in assymetrical warfare, with ambushes from behind being a serious issue. In a classic open warfare scenario with the enemy "at 12 o'clock" you shouldn't meddle around too much with rear protection as this should not happen all too often. Both Poland and Malaysia are not currently engaged in such assymetrical operations with tanks in theatre and probably will not be in the foreseeable future. So this discussion is very theoretical in nature. The technical feasibility should be no problem, just build the slat array around the fuel tanks.

Are those barrels even installed during combat ops? I thought they are more for street marches and are removed when the tank is heading into combat.

[STURM]

DavidDCM, I was talking about the PT-91. I feel the Malaysian army spent a lot upgrading the tank but neglected to improve its armour protection. Granted, improving the armour brings along extra weight which effects performance but I think the benefits outweight everything else. Then again, after selecting the PT-91 they were probably stuck with ERAWA, with no choice.

About the fuels tanks, good question. I have no idea if Soviet/Russian tank doctrine called for discarding the fuel tanks upon engaging in combat. The main problem for the Malaysian army is that they'll have to learn a lot of things from scratch with the MBTs and develop their own doctrine to suit their operating enviroment. I think the best people to speak to would about tank operations in a similiar enviroment would be the Vietnamese.

[Waylander]

Jup, the fuel drums are jettisoned before entering a dangerous area.

[nevidimka]

DavidDCM, I was talking about the PT-91. I feel the Malaysian army spent a lot upgrading the tank but neglected to improve its armour protection. Granted, improving the armour brings along extra weight which effects performance but I think the benefits outweight everything else. Then again, after selecting the PT-91 they were probably stuck with ERAWA, with no choice.

About the fuels tanks, good question. I have no idea if Soviet/Russian tank doctrine called for discarding the fuel tanks upon engaging in combat. The main problem for the Malaysian army is that they'll have to learn a lot of things from scratch with the MBTs and develop their own doctrine to suit their operating enviroment. I think the best people to speak to would about tank operations in a similiar enviroment would be the Vietnamese.

I think DavidDCM would have a different opinion on protection in regards to the Pt 91. :)

Also what do you mean upgrading the tank? What was upgraded on the tank other than the FCS?

Anyways, you seem not in favour of the Pt91? Which tank you believe should meet the requirement of the MAF?

[DavidDCM]

The PT-91M can take everything short of a 120 mm tankgun. Same goes for the T-90 with Kontakt 5, especially in close ranges. So would it really make a difference?

RPG's, ATGM's, autocannons, and smaller tankguns (75 - 105 mm) can not hurt the PT-91M frontally. That should be enough. (maybe 105 mm with most advanced KE ammunition can hurt the PT-91M, but I doubt Thailand has such a round).

[Tavarisch]

The PT-91M can take everything short of a 120 mm tankgun. Same goes for the T-90 with Kontakt 5, especially in close ranges. So would it really make a difference?

RPG's, ATGM's, autocannons, and smaller tankguns (75 - 105 mm) can not hurt the PT-91M frontally. That should be enough. (maybe 105 mm with most advanced KE ammunition can hurt the PT-91M, but I doubt Thailand has such a round).


Our Southern Neighbors can lob 120 DU rounds at our tank. But, chances are that we won't be fighting them unless some radical or crazy extremist decides to stage a coup de tat in which the US will help to ensure in it's failure.

[DavidDCM]

Yes, that was what I meant. Singapore's Leo 2 can reliably destroy the PT-91M, but this wouldn't be different if Malaysia had bought the T-90 instead of it. So in the end it doesn't really matter.

And don't forget that at the time the PT contract was signed, there was no Leopard 2 in Singapore. So at that time, there was basically nothing in the whole region that could reliably kill the PT through the front.

[OPSSG]

Our Southern Neighbors can lob 120 DU rounds at our tank. But, chances are that we won't be fighting them unless some radical or crazy extremist decides to stage a coup de tat in which the US will help to ensure in it's failure.

You have only one immediate southern neighbour with 120 mm tank rounds (I don't think the Indonesians have that too), so I assume it must be us you are talking about. BTW, tanks rounds are direct fire weapons (so it is usually not 'lob' rounds). I would reserve the word 'lob' for 155 mm cargo rounds (which is what the ERA is for). For that matter, the PT-91M can also kill a Leo 2A4. :D

Besides, I have more confidence in Malaysia (in your constitution and in your peoples) to sort out the current political problems that you. I also have confidence in the professionalism of the MAF to deter and prevent any coup de tat attempts.

As I explained before, we Singaporeans like shopping in JB (to buy DVDS and other goodies) too much, so no invasion is likely. We have an army of mainly conscripts, so we are more keen to go about our lives. :onfloorl:

[Tavarisch]

You have only one immediate southern neighbour with 120 mm tank rounds (I don't think the Indonesians have that too), so I assume it must be us you are talking about. BTW, tanks rounds are direct fire weapons (so it is usually not 'lob' rounds). I would reserve the word 'lob' for 155 mm cargo rounds (which is what the ERA is for). For that matter, the PT-91M can also kill a Leo 2A4. :D

Besides, I have more confidence in Malaysia (in your constitution and in your peoples) to sort out the current political problems that you. I also have confidence in the professionalism of the MAF to deter and prevent any coup de tat attempts.

As I explained before, we Singaporeans like shopping in JB (to buy DVDS and other goodies) too much, so no invasion is likely. We have an army of mainly conscripts, so we are more keen to go about our lives. :onfloorl:


I meant lob in a funny way. It's a funny word. I do not doubt the chances of our tank against your second-hand Leo but I'm sure they have a better chance of winning, primarily because your Leos are more armored and there are more Leos compared to the Pendekars.

I do believe that Indonesia operates a T90S or T90M but I am unsure of it. I'm sure Feanor could elaborate on any deal with Indonesia but it is very unlikely.

And, apparently DVDs aren't the only thing you guys buy. Some of you I've heard (More like my uncle, his family is from Singapore but he was born here) like to buy cheaper oil in Johor Bahru too. (BTW, what's up with the Ramli Burger problem? I hear you guys can't buy them?)

And let's remember what Soviet Conscripts did to the Germans in Stalingrad eh. (Okay, you guys don't have 20 million to spare like we do or have military commissars but still, never underestimate a conscript force..... )

[DavidDCM]

Indonesia does not have a Main Battle Tank, nor are they planning to buy one.

[STURM]

Nevidimka, to answer your question about the upgrades done, besides the Savan FCS. I suppose these are more modifications than upgrades.

Slovakian gun with 2 axis stabiliser
EADS turret drive
mine protected seat for the driver
new 1,000hp engine
Renk auto transmission
Diehl tracks
improvements to the torsion bar
Vigy 15 sight

Almost a brand new tank.

[nevidimka]

Nevidimka, to answer your question about the upgrades done, besides the Savan FCS. I suppose these are more modifications than upgrades.

Slovakian gun with 2 axis stabiliser
EADS turret drive
mine protected seat for the driver
new 1,000hp engine
Renk auto transmission
Diehl tracks
improvements to the torsion bar
Vigy 15 sight

Almost a brand new tank.

I'm sure during the evaluation, these upgrades were not part of the evaluation. So how does the Pt 91 win the evaluation test if, this much was in need to be upgraded?

[Feanor]

There were some speculations about T-90 sales to Indonesia, but nothing ever came of it. There is a small BMP-3 contract to Indonesia. That's about the closest thing.

[Tavarisch]

Why do these sales always become inconclusive in the end? It's been bugging me........ (Arab Saudi, Indonesia.... What's going on?)

I do believe though that Malaysia should further promote diplomatic ties between us and Russia. Russia is the closest thing to a super power here and I do not trust the Chinese in the PRC, despite the PLA being a power in it's own right. (To some extent at least)

[STURM]

Nevidimka, those were the modifications made to suit Malaysian requirements. Out of the 3 contenders, the T-90, T-84 and PT-91, only the army and probably Deftech knows who did the best, performance wise. The PT-91 was probably selected due to political reasons, price tag and offsets agreed by the Poles.

In an article for an Australian mag in 2002, Dzirhan said that the favourite then, was the T-84. Deftech even announced it. The choice of the PT-91 surprised many. Prior the the PT-91 being offered, the T-72MI was sent for trials in Malaysia and was fitted with an LIW Tiger FCS. In the late 90s, GLS from Germany even offered to mount a T-72 turret on a Leopard 1 hull.
The Korean KI was offered, but rumour has it that there problems with the US in supplying the US made FCS to a third party. According to what I read in another forum years ago, the Slovakian gun was selected because the Polish gun wasn't accurate enough to be paired with the Savan FCS.

[nevidimka]

Nevidimka, those were the modifications made to suit Malaysian requirements. Out of the 3 contenders, the T-90, T-84 and PT-91, only the army and probably Deftech knows who did the best, performance wise. The PT-91 was probably selected due to political reasons, price tag and offsets agreed by the Poles.

In an article for an Australian mag in 2002, Dzirhan said that the favourite then, was the T-84. Deftech even announced it. The choice of the PT-91 surprised many. Prior the the PT-91 being offered, the T-72MI was sent for trials in Malaysia and was fitted with an LIW Tiger FCS. In the late 90s, GLS from Germany even offered to mount a T-72 turret on a Leopard 1 hull.
The Korean KI was offered, but rumour has it that there problems with the US in supplying the US made FCS to a third party. According to what I read in another forum years ago, the Slovakian gun was selected because the Polish gun wasn't accurate enough to be paired with the Savan FCS.

Btw do you mean T 80? coz on the MAF thread a pic was posted on the tank, and it looked like T 80. T 84 would be a Ukrainian upgraded tank with bustle mounted auto loader.
Those modifications indicate a lot IMO. It involves the Gun,FCS, mine protection,engine,transmission, tracks, and optical sensors. These are a lot of modification to the original tank. That would probably indicate that the tank failed in many respects of its evaluation.

[STURM]

The T-84 was displayed at DSA 2000 and took part in mobility trials with the T-90. I'm not aware of the T-80 being offered.

[DavidDCM]

It was the T-84U that was offered to Malaysia. It's not much different from the T-80.

The tanks that you mean (with the bustle autoloader etc.) are called T-84 Oplot and T-84 Yatagan, and were not offered to Malaysia.

Pic: T-84U during mobility tests in Malaysia

[nevidimka]

It was the T-84U that was offered to Malaysia. It's not much different from the T-80.

The tanks that you mean (with the bustle autoloader etc.) are called T-84 Oplot and T-84 Yatagan, and were not offered to Malaysia.

Pic: T-84U during mobility tests in Malaysia

Ahh, my mistake. Thanks for clarifying. I thought the T 84 was Oplot all around, and that the version without bustle auto loader are called T 80 by the Ukrainians.

I also suspect that the T 80 was the real winner in the evaluation, considering it had the most powerful engine as well.

[Tavarisch]

The T-84 and and T-90 still remains the better choice. Considering the fact that the T-84U had APS compared to our current PT-91Ms which do not.

I hope in the future our government may seek a deal with the Ukrainians instead. The Poles are more and more becoming NATO'd and we'd best stay away from them, being NAM and all.

[DavidDCM]

You buy fighter jets directly from Russia and USA, but don't want to deal with Poland because you're in the NAM? That makes no sense :)

[nevidimka]

The evaluation entries were all the russian based medium weight tank. There were no Western heavy tank involved. Was this due to cost factor alone or due to their weight, they were not suitable for the Malaysian landscape and were canceled out? But if that were to be true, at least some form of evaluation should have been done b4 it was canceled out right?

[Waylander]

It just for pure cost reasons.

The total weight is just important when it comes to bridge crossing.
In all other circumstences ground pressure is much more important.

But if Malaysia would have wanted to buy a western design it would have needed much more money to also git the desired numbers.

[eckherl]

The T-84 and and T-90 still remains the better choice. Considering the fact that the T-84U had APS compared to our current PT-91Ms which do not.

I hope in the future our government may seek a deal with the Ukrainians instead. The Poles are more and more becoming NATO'd and we'd best stay away from them, being NAM and all.

Why would they be of better choice, because of armor protection values, what if the potential posing side has the proper projectile to penetrate the armor, then where is the advantage. Are you basing this on unreliable APS technology that can be countered with better missile guidance systems.

And who states that you cannot further upgrade this tank if needed.

[Waylander]

That's exactly the point. David also mentioned it before.
At the expected LOS not any of these tanks is going to save you from a L/44 with DM63 so why is more armorn a decent advantage?

And just have a look at what the neighbours had when the decision was made.
The Leos were bought more in reaction to the PTs and not vice versa.

Apart from Singapore's Javelin there are not that many ground weapons which are going to penetrate a PT frontally but are stopped by the armor of a T-84 or T-90.
And against Javelin a T-84 or T-90 is as much toast in the event of a hit as a PT is.

In a potential war against Singapore a T-84 or T-90 is not going to be much better than a PT. The AT assets (be it air or ground) used by Singapore can do as much harm to a PT as to the others and against the other neighbours a PT is as good a choice as is any of the other tanks.

Now include a cheaper price...

[STURM]

I think the main threat PT-91s are the Apaches with Hellfires, not the Spikes or Leopards. You can only rely on natural cover for concealment for so long. You still have to deploy to engage and maneuver.

Correct me if I'm wrong but maybe the Metis-M has a chance of achieving a frontal penetrtation of the Leopard 2A4? I think the Bakthar Shikan will have a similiar performance to TOW 1. Perhaps even large round shoulder fire weapons like Panzerfaust or LAW 80 will cause considerable damage to certain areas. We can assume that unless decent 125mm KE is bought, the PT-91 wont be able to achieve a frontal penetration. I read somewhere that Chehcian anti-tanks teams were equipped with 3-4 RPGs and were trained to hit a target at the same time, maximising the chances of damage.

[Feanor]

I read somewhere that Chehcian anti-tanks teams were equipped with 3-4 RPGs and were trained to hit a target at the same time, maximising the chances of damage.

Where did you read that? I suppose it's possible, but we'd be talking about very limited numbers of these kinds of teams. What you describe isn't easy even for a professional military.

[STURM]

I read an article on it. Chechian anti-tanks teams were also equipped with RPKs and Dragunovs to protect their RPG teams. A lot of them were
ex-Soviet military and some had previously fought in Abkhazia.

From: A Weapon For All Season [Lester Grau]

[To the moderator -I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post extracts from published articles]

''The Chechen lower-level combat group consisted of 15 to 20 personnel subdivided into three or four-man fighting cells. These cells had an antitank gunner (normally armed with the RPG-7 or RPG-18 shoulder-fired antitank rocket launcher), a machine gunner and a sniper. Additional personnel served as ammunition bearers and assistant gunners. Chechen combat groups deployed these cells as anti-armor hunter-killer teams. The sniper and machine gunner would pin down the supporting infantry while the antitank gunner would engage the armored target. Teams deployed at ground level, in second and third stories, and in basements of buildings. Normally five or six hunter-killer teams simultaneously attacked a single armored vehicle. Kill shots were generally made against the top, rear and sides of vehicles. Chechens also dropped bottles filled with gasoline or jellied fuel on top of vehicles. The Chechen hunter-killer teams tried to trap vehicle columns in city streets where destruction of the first and last vehicles will trap the column and allow its total destruction.''

''The rebels in Tadjikistan in 1992 applied this same technique when attacking T-72 tanks equipped with reactive armor. Since they lacked the anti-reactive armor PG-7VR tandem warhead, the first gunner would hit the tank to blow a hole in the reactive armor and the second and third gunner would fire the kill shots at the exposed area. This "double-teaming" also usually took out the tank's vision blocks, so if the tank survived, it was blind allowing the RPG gunners time to reposition, reload and reengage. Another "trick of the trade" was to throw a fragmentation grenade on the T-72's front deck to take out the driver's vision block before the massed RPGs opened up on the tank. The optimum shot for the Tadjik rebels was against the rear section of the T-72 turret. ''

[Tavarisch]

That's exactly the point. David also mentioned it before.
At the expected LOS not any of these tanks is going to save you from a L/44 with DM63 so why is more armorn a decent advantage?

And just have a look at what the neighbours had when the decision was made.
The Leos were bought more in reaction to the PTs and not vice versa.

Apart from Singapore's Javelin there are not that many ground weapons which are going to penetrate a PT frontally but are stopped by the armor of a T-84 or T-90.
And against Javelin a T-84 or T-90 is as much toast in the event of a hit as a PT is.

In a potential war against Singapore a T-84 or T-90 is not going to be much better than a PT. The AT assets (be it air or ground) used by Singapore can do as much harm to a PT as to the others and against the other neighbours a PT is as good a choice as is any of the other tanks.

Now include a cheaper price...

Actually, the both the T-84 and T-90 can mount APS, which is said to work nearly 80% of the time. The chances of survival against Heat-seeking ATGMs are quite high I imagine. They did a test with the T-90 and SHTORA and most of the ATGMs deflected.

I am unsure though of top attack missiles.

[STURM]

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, top attack munitions are dangerous for all MBTs. Its for this reason that on the Merkava 3 and 4, the hatches are so heavy they have to be power operated. On the Namer, the Israelis have done away with the 2nd hatch.

If i'm not mistaken, Schtora is only useful against SACLOS missiles like Milan, TOW, etc. Against newer systems like Spike and Javelin, Schtora isn't any use. One of the biggest MBT related contracts at the moment is the Indian army requirement for around 500 APS's to fit on their T-90s.

[eckherl]

Actually, the both the T-84 and T-90 can mount APS, which is said to work nearly 80% of the time. The chances of survival against Heat-seeking ATGMs are quite high I imagine. They did a test with the T-90 and SHTORA and most of the ATGMs deflected.

I am unsure though of top attack missiles.

You can mount these systems to any tank out there, and few countries seem interested in purchasing them for their T series, 80% figure from Russian sources when tested against Russian designed ATGMs not western, and I doubt that it will have that high of a success rate in modern combat fighting a opponent that has modernized ATGM capability.

[Type59]

You can mount these systems to any tank out there, and few countries seem interested in purchasing them for their T series, 80% figure from Russian sources when tested against Russian designed ATGMs not western, and I doubt that it will have that high of a success rate in modern combat fighting a opponent that has modernized ATGM capability.

Not to difficult to get western anti tank missiles. Not exactly top secret as opposed to fighter technology. History has shown the Russians have successfully penerated into secretive agencies like CIA and FBI, thus US army might be simplier.

many ways to do this

1, Buying stolen gear from US base personal, there have been cases of personal selling F 16 engine to uncover cops. Weopans in Iraq and Afghanistan have been lost, such as night vision, chance that missile can lost too.

2. Buy from third party, other armies have criminal elements in it too.

Lastly were talking about Russian military here, we know they are secretive.

[eckherl]

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, top attack munitions are dangerous for all MBTs. Its for this reason that on the Merkava 3 and 4, the hatches are so heavy they have to be power operated. On the Namer, the Israelis have done away with the 2nd hatch.

If i'm not mistaken, Schtora is only useful against SACLOS missiles like Milan, TOW, etc. Against newer systems like Spike and Javelin, Schtora isn't any use. One of the biggest MBT related contracts at the moment is the Indian army requirement for around 500 APS's to fit on their T-90s.

You may want to look at Tow 2B series.:)

[eckherl]

Not to difficult to get western anti tank missiles. Not exactly top secret as opposed to fighter technology. History has shown the Russians have successfully penerated into secretive agencies like CIA and FBI, thus US army might be simplier.

many ways to do this

1, Buying stolen gear from US base personal, there have been cases of personal selling F 16 engine to uncover cops. Weopans in Iraq and Afghanistan have been lost, such as night vision, chance that missile can lost too.

2. Buy from third party, other armies have criminal elements in it too.

Lastly were talking about Russian military here, we know they are secretive.


Not saying that they cannot get their hands on them, it is a open market and the cold war has been over for quite some time now. Hell even the U.S will be selling India in the near future Hellfire missiles, oh oh! could they be monkey models:onfloorl: just kidding Waylander. The fact is that Russia designed this system by testing their own missiles against it, could it be that they are concerned with their good friend neighbors versus western capability, IR, laser and radio frequencies used for guidence systems can be modified to overcome such systems thus the reason why they are not selling them like hotcakes.

[nevidimka]

That's exactly the point. David also mentioned it before.
At the expected LOS not any of these tanks is going to save you from a L/44 with DM63 so why is more armorn a decent advantage?

And just have a look at what the neighbours had when the decision was made.
The Leos were bought more in reaction to the PTs and not vice versa.

Apart from Singapore's Javelin there are not that many ground weapons which are going to penetrate a PT frontally but are stopped by the armor of a T-84 or T-90.
And against Javelin a T-84 or T-90 is as much toast in the event of a hit as a PT is.

In a potential war against Singapore a T-84 or T-90 is not going to be much better than a PT. The AT assets (be it air or ground) used by Singapore can do as much harm to a PT as to the others and against the other neighbours a PT is as good a choice as is any of the other tanks.

Now include a cheaper price...

I think you are mistaken there. The Leo's were not bought as a reaction to the PT's but as an ongoing modernization process or 3G capability of the new Singapore's military.

[Waylander]

I am sure that Singapore had standing plans for an ongoing modernization of it's mechanized and armored forces.
But I also think that the news of Malaysia procuring the PTs and the nearly immediate availability of the surplus Leos made it easy for Singapore to make a fast decision about the procurement.

[OPSSG]

I am sure that Singapore had standing plans for an ongoing modernization of it's mechanized and armored forces.

There is a correlation but correlation is not causation.:D

The SAF typically has a long term plan for modernization. The first thing to change is doctrine and changes to weapon systems will be made in conjunction with the doctrine change. Once we 'prove' through trials that a concept works, the program for acquisition beings (typically a 2 to 4 year cycle). It will not be rushed and and it will not be an ad hoc reactive decision (though we are known to conduct reviews* based on new inputs). We are very interested in new capabilities and new platforms are a product of our desire for capability enhancement.

I was involved in certain trials in the late 1980s and we have only recently declassified aspects of those trials now called the Army 2000 project. I can tell you certain weapon platforms that were introduced in the 1990s were the result of decisions made in the 1980s.

But I also think that the news of Malaysia procuring the PTs and the nearly immediate availability of the surplus Leos made it easy for Singapore to make a fast decision about the procurement.

IMHO, there has been unrelenting pressure by the army to upgrade our equipment and the Leo 2A4 acquisition is part of the pressure we put on Mindef and the minister. Please note that all the necessary support equipment were acquired or designed before the Leo 2A4 acquisition (Bronco fuel resupply vehicles, M3 and even our VLBs). It has been recently announced that we will upgrade armour protection for the Leo 2A4 and the weight increase was catered for by prior planning.

The reason we are so happy with the PT-91M purchase (it is a MBT after all), is that once that occurred and there was no need to 'hide' our Leo 2A4 acquisition.

Singapore is politically sensitive in relation to any 'offensive' equipment acquisition to avoid protests in Malaysia (on our offensive capabilities). Even a book (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4760&page=2) on the SAF affected Malaysia-Singapore relations.

Sorry about the long reply to a single point. :)

--------------------------------
* Singapore was offered the F-18, when Malaysia and Thailand (order cancelled) placed orders. We reviewed our decision and went ahead with our 20x F-16 block 52+ (or F-16I) purchase.

[STURM]

Certainly agree with the points made by OPSSG.

The main benefits that the SAF has over the MAF is that there's higher public awareness amongst the Singaporean population when it comes to defence. And more importanty, threat perceptions. Malaysia doesn't feel as vulnerable as Singapore. Malaysians as a whole, despite the 'Emergency' and 'Confontation', remain pretty much complacent and ignorant when it comes to national security. Both states have long term defence modernisation plans but the key differance is the MAF is unable to implement its defence modernisation plans on a sustained basis to due to the inconsistancy of funds provided by the government, plus internal political factors. Plans for the MBTs and SSKs were first drawn up in the 80s but have only been implemented now.

I still remember from newspaper reports, the fuss kicked up by politicans from neighbouring states when it was announced that a mere 8 Tornado IDRs were included in an arms MOU signed with Malaysia and the UK in 1988.

[DavidDCM]

The reason we are so happy with the PT-91M purchase (it is a MBT after all), is that once that occurred, there was no need to 'hide' our Leo 2A4 acquisition, unlike the 'Tempest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_tank)' (a modernised 40s-50s design) that still does not officially exist. :cool:

I've always considered the Centurion Tempest as a myth. Do you believe it actually exists? How could a tank unit effictively exist when they never go on the training range or somewhere else where they could be seen in public?

[OPSSG]

I've always considered the Centurion Tempest as a myth. Do you believe it actually exists? How could a tank unit effectively exist when they never go on the training range or somewhere else where they could be seen in public?

I understand why you think it is a myth. :D

According to Tim Huxley (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4760&page=2) (at page 131) and I quote:
"In 1975, the SAF purchased 63 Centurion MBTs from India and a second batch from Israel in 1993-94 bringing the total to at least 80... [and] are known as Tempests... Apparently for fear of provoking controversy with Singapore's neigbours, Mindef has never admitted that the SAF operates MBTs."

Note that Tim Huxley mentions specific countries where these alleged platforms have been used during training but I have deleted reference to specific countries (due to sensitivity issues). Please read Tim's book and his reference source at page 75-76 of “Singapore and the Army 2000 plan”, Military Technology, 7/1992 by Prasun K. Sengupta.

I offer no further comment.

[STURM]

Despite numerous reports over the years, regarding the Centurions and their presence at the training facility Taiwan, I have never seen a photo.
Prior to the 2A4s, only the AMX13s and the engineer variant of the M60 have been shown. Im sure they exist, but surely theres no reason to still keep mum about them.

[cm07]

OPSSG -> Tempests dont exist.

Please dont go off the original topic.

The purchase of the PT-91M is also the ongoing process for the modernisation and maturing of the armour forces in Malaysia. As it is for the SAF armour forces with the purchase of the Leo2.

In addition, the employment of MBTs of both Pendakar and Leo2SG is the obvious choice. What platforms to better compliment the Adnans and the Bionixes than modernised MBTs to provide further firepower,mobility and protection?

The purchase in numbers ( 48 and 102?) is also in line with the deployment numbers as required by the doctrine of both countries.(The word 'spares' is taking into the account that the tanks will not be employed on a day to day training basis. Obviously if they were declared warstocks, the meaning would turn provocative. Good relationships with our neighbours is a must.)

48 PT-91s in this case will cater to a tank battalion as part of an armoured Brigade in the MAF.

The Leo2 purchases, on the other hand, will cater to a tank platoon in every company of a SAR. Going by the numbers purchased, we can expect the these tanks to be sufficient in supporting 1 armoured brigade in each of the 3 combined armoured divisions.

[DavidDCM]

The Malaysian tank battalion is not part of a brigade, it's directly subordinated to the Army HQ.
The armoured component of the Adnan-brigade as of now is provided by a battalion of Sibmas AFSV-90.

[cm07]

This i do not know.

It was to my believe that the Malaysian Armoured Corps consisting of 5 battalions would operate as one large unit interlinking the various platforms

Apparently it is announced that the future armoured elements of the MAF will mainly operated under 3rd Division which is transforming into a combined arms division consisting of 1 armoured brigade, 1 mech and 1 motor brigade.

From this future plan -
armour brigade - 2 tanks Bn, 1 mech bn
mech brigade - 3 mech bn?
motor brigade - wheels lots of wheels.

Pretty much if you throw in another batch of MBTs that is yet to be bought, this should wholly account for the 5 current armour battalions in the future plan. Even if they are not fighting as 1 brigade(as i thought) armour will eventually be employed as the main strength of a division.

[eckherl]

does anybody know if this batch of Twardies have APU devices and are they equipped to handle MICLICK devices. Also does anyone know what type of sub caliber device for the main gun are they using.

[DavidDCM]

This i do not know.

It was to my believe that the Malaysian Armoured Corps consisting of 5 battalions would operate as one large unit interlinking the various platforms

Apparently it is announced that the future armoured elements of the MAF will mainly operated under 3rd Division which is transforming into a combined arms division consisting of 1 armoured brigade, 1 mech and 1 motor brigade.

From this future plan -
armour brigade - 2 tanks Bn, 1 mech bn
mech brigade - 3 mech bn?
motor brigade - wheels lots of wheels.

Pretty much if you throw in another batch of MBTs that is yet to be bought, this should wholly account for the 5 current armour battalions in the future plan. Even if they are not fighting as 1 brigade(as i thought) armour will eventually be employed as the main strength of a division.

Yes, five battalions (in Malaysia called regiment due to British army traditions). They are spread all over Malaysia and do not form a big coherent unit. Three of them belong to different divisions, one belongs to the 4th Mech Brigade and one directly to Army HQ.

4th Mech Bde belongs to the 3rd division, so this division indeed has two armour bn.

[STURM]

eckherl, of the 3 MBTs that were shortlisted and trialed in Malaysia, only the
T-90S and T-84 were fitted with an APU. Whether an APU was included in the modifications done to the PT-91 is unknown. Sorry, but what is a MICLICK device? Also, is the SAVAN 15 fitted with a auto tracker?

[eckherl]

eckherl, of the 3 MBTs that were shortlisted and trialed in Malaysia, only the
T-90S and T-84 were fitted with an APU. Whether an APU was included in the modifications done to the PT-91 is unknown. Sorry, but what is a MICLICK device? Also, is the SAVAN 15 fitted with a auto tracker?

Sorry, should of not used our field term for it. A MICLIK is a linear explosive charge device used for tactical mine clearing, the Polish model/nomenclacture is ZB-WLWD/7, and they can mount it on tanks. Savin 15 nor FCS is not fitted with a auto tracker but the ballistic computer can induce auto lead when lasing to a moving target, the gunner though will still have to keep his reticle center of visible mass by tracking using his cadillac controls.

[STURM]

I doubt if a MICLIK device was bought but who knows? A lot of of stuff regarding the PT-91M deal have not been reported. No results of the trials performed on the T-90S, PT-91 and T-84 were ever released. As far as I know, only the Vickers Mk3 performed live firings, back in 1995. And only with HESH rounds due to a lack of a suitable firing range. What I find strange is why
the Ukraniean bustle auto loader was not offered with the T-84 to the Malaysians, as it had already been developed prior to 2000. For the tank bridge, the Leguan was chosen. Though RUAG was selected to provide a tank simulator, Im sure if a contract was signed.

[Tavarisch]

I doubt if a MICLIK device was bought but who knows? A lot of of stuff regarding the PT-91M deal have not been reported. No results of the trials performed on the T-90S, PT-91 and T-84 were ever released. As far as I know, only the Vickers Mk3 performed live firings, back in 1995. And only with HESH rounds due to a lack of a suitable firing range. What I find strange is why
the Ukraniean bustle auto loader was not offered with the T-84 to the Malaysians, as it had already been developed prior to 2000. For the tank bridge, the Leguan was chosen. Though RUAG was selected to provide a tank simulator, Im sure if a contract was signed.

Probably because the Malaysians didn't ask for a bustle mounted auto-loader. I hear those things are optional...... (Or, again, I maybe wrong....)

[STURM]

Does anyone know what advantages the Thales Catherine thermal imager provides over the thermal imager paired with the Savan FCS?

[DavidDCM]

Umm... The Savan-15 has a Catherine TI from what I know. But Catherine is not a single model but a whole family of thermal imagers with several different versions. So it depends on which particular model you refer to.