I see your point. However, I don't feel it necessary that the army has to have an organic armoured brigade. Mechanized brigades with an organic armoured battalion would suffice. Just my 2 cents. For the 3rd Div, not counting augmentation by the AW, I would organize around 2 mechanized and 1 infantry brigades. I would deploy the 2 mechs on each coast south of Gemas. The inf brigade I would train to fight in small killer-hunter and spotter teams to create a deep screen ahead of the 2 mechs. Hence, I would prefer the Kluang-based 7th(?) to remain as a leg infantry unit.
Malaysian Army/Land forces discussions
- Thread starter weasel1962
- Start date
To the north, American-built M-48s and M-60s. Some Chinese built stuff as well. Further south, British-built Scorpions, Saladins, French-built AMX-10 and Russian-built PT-76s. To the east, mostly wheeled vehicles. V-150s and Simbas.What would the average tank engagement range be that they would be required to fight in, also what other type of armor would it have to go against in this regoin of the world besides LEO 2 A4`s.
Waylander, you are obviously very knowledgble in these matters. Perhaps you will be able to offer some insights. How would you rate the T-21 turret that Giat (and now DMD, I guess) offered as part of a possible improvement package for the T-72 line of tanks? Never mind the difference in the main gun. Thanks.Only the armor could be a problem in the future as the Leopards you are facing have an option to upgrade their armor the PTs have not.
In the end I don't see a real benefit in purchasing such a turret.
The T-21 weighs some tons less than the Leclerc turret and so don't offers the same level of protection.
And with the upgrades done to the electronics of the PT-91M I don't see a real advantage because the PT-91M already has a good electronics package.
The only thing I would consider as an advantage is the gun.
With the french L/52 you are able to fire DM43/53/63 which gives you better penetration performance than the current gun of the PT-91M.
And this could be important if Singapore decides to upgrade the Leos at least up to A5 standard.
The T-21 weighs some tons less than the Leclerc turret and so don't offers the same level of protection.
And with the upgrades done to the electronics of the PT-91M I don't see a real advantage because the PT-91M already has a good electronics package.
The only thing I would consider as an advantage is the gun.
With the french L/52 you are able to fire DM43/53/63 which gives you better penetration performance than the current gun of the PT-91M.
And this could be important if Singapore decides to upgrade the Leos at least up to A5 standard.
You are referring to security of supply? If so, don't underestimate this as a factor in securing victory. Remember, winning an engagement or battle doesn't guarantee you will win the war. AFAIK, the Werhmarcht had technologically superior equipment to the Red Army but that didn't stop the Army Group Centre from collapsing.I dont want to be a party pooper, Its great that Malaysia is getting MBT's to strengthen our Land forces. But it seems were sacrificing tank "ability" for tank "reliablity". ?_?
Re: T-21
Thank you.In the end I don't see a real benefit in purchasing such a turret.
The T-21 weighs some tons less than the Leclerc turret and so don't offers the same level of protection.
And with the upgrades done to the electronics of the PT-91M I don't see a real advantage because the PT-91M already has a good electronics package.
The only thing I would consider as an advantage is the gun.
With the french L/52 you are able to fire DM43/53/63 which gives you better penetration performance than the current gun of the PT-91M.
And this could be important if Singapore decides to upgrade the Leos at least up to A5 standard.
Then the PT91M will serve you well, the LEO2A4 is a good tank, but the Twardy can defeat it with proper ammunition and range.To the north, American-built M-48s and M-60s. Some Chinese built stuff as well. Further south, British-built Scorpions, Saladins, French-built AMX-10 and Russian-built PT-76s. To the east, mostly wheeled vehicles. V-150s and Simbas.
Totally forgot about WW2 German tank battles against the Soviet T-34's. Does the factor of Open field battle and forested fielding have any effect on the outcome of tank battles?You are referring to security of supply? If so, don't underestimate this as a factor in securing victory. Remember, winning an engagement or battle doesn't guarantee you will win the war. AFAIK, the Werhmarcht had technologically superior equipment to the Red Army but that didn't stop the Army Group Centre from collapsing.
You have to rely much more on mech inf with tanks being pressed more into a supporting role.
So your way of building up mech inf brigades with one tank and two mech inf btns is normal.
The fighting distance shrinks and heavy vegetation favors the defense more.
It is not that easy to build up strong points which enables even smaller forces to hould ground against larger opponents but also makes it harder for mobile reserves to reinforce weak points fast and mechanized counterassaults are also limited.
Engagements are also longer than for example a clash of tank units in open terrain which tend to be very fast.
Even in our limited vegetation (Compared to yours) defending tanks and IFVs were able to find hidden and protected positions which enabled them to wait for the enemy to close in to several hundred meters making the first fire volley a really nasty surprise for the attacker.
So your way of building up mech inf brigades with one tank and two mech inf btns is normal.
The fighting distance shrinks and heavy vegetation favors the defense more.
It is not that easy to build up strong points which enables even smaller forces to hould ground against larger opponents but also makes it harder for mobile reserves to reinforce weak points fast and mechanized counterassaults are also limited.
Engagements are also longer than for example a clash of tank units in open terrain which tend to be very fast.
Even in our limited vegetation (Compared to yours) defending tanks and IFVs were able to find hidden and protected positions which enabled them to wait for the enemy to close in to several hundred meters making the first fire volley a really nasty surprise for the attacker.
From my earlier understanding, the armored brigade would consist of 2 tank reg + 1 mech inf batt while future mech inf bde would consist of 2 mech batt + 1 tank reg. The combined arm div would consist of 1 armor bde + 1 mech inf bde + 1 motorised inf bde.There's more than enough APCs/IFVs to convert the existing regts in 3 Div into mechanised infantry regts.
I think the combined arms div will probably be a 1 arm bde + 3 mech inf bde formation.
What'll probably happen is that new MBTs will probably be formed into new KADs (& replace the allocated KAD for 3 Div). Once there are 3 tank KADs, a new arm bde will probably be formed and attached to the div.
I won't be surprised to see another MBT purchase fairly soon.
3 Div consists of 1 bde + 4 mech bde + 7 bde. The tank home base is in Kem Syed Sirajuddin in Gemas. I would say that is closer to 1 bde than 7 bde in Kluang.That would be 7th Bde? Hmm ... I would rather they be assigned to 4th Bde in Kuantan.
weasel1962
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #92
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #93
Article.
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Apart from the Airforce...........having so many types in so few numbers per type cannot be economical nor efficient. If Malaysia procures Super Hornets then this just becomes worse............that the country adopted a prudent and balanced approach when it came to spending.
Air force suppose to compromise a complex of assets, and unique individually.Apart from the Airforce...........having so many types in so few numbers per type cannot be economical nor efficient. If Malaysia procures Super Hornets then this just becomes worse............
anyways, we'll see.
Not in such small numbers. I agree with buglerbilly on this.Air force suppose to compromise a complex of assets, and unique individually.
anyways, we'll see.
Additional MRLS regiment approved
Article in Tempur magazine says the Ministry of Finance has approved the negotiation for a further order of ASTROS II to equip an additional MRLS regiment for the army. Expected delivery date to be 2009.
The article also mentions a requirement to re-equip 2 existing tube artillery regiments with a wheeled SP system of the 155/52 class. Candidates include the Ceaser from France and the T5/52 from South Africa.
Article in Tempur magazine says the Ministry of Finance has approved the negotiation for a further order of ASTROS II to equip an additional MRLS regiment for the army. Expected delivery date to be 2009.
The article also mentions a requirement to re-equip 2 existing tube artillery regiments with a wheeled SP system of the 155/52 class. Candidates include the Ceaser from France and the T5/52 from South Africa.
weasel1962
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #98
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Nothing announced by now.
I mean, 4 month isn't that much. Last year in spring they tested those 3 APCs for 6 weeks. Still nothing new about that one, too...
But by the way. It somehow is a strange compilation of candidates. Ingwe and Kornet are Long Range (up to 5 Km) and therefore of the same class as Bakthar Shikan, which is already in service, whereas Metis-M is only a medium range ATGM (up to 1,5 Km).
Which ATGMs does Malaysia already have in service? I know of Eryx as Short Range man-portable ATGM and Bakthar Shikan as IFV-mounted Long Range ATGM. Anything else by now?
In addition lots of unguided AT-weapons, Carl Gustav, RPG-7, C90-CR (M3)....
Quite confusing all this stuff. It's never cost-effective to use different systems for similar tasks.
I mean, 4 month isn't that much. Last year in spring they tested those 3 APCs for 6 weeks. Still nothing new about that one, too...
But by the way. It somehow is a strange compilation of candidates. Ingwe and Kornet are Long Range (up to 5 Km) and therefore of the same class as Bakthar Shikan, which is already in service, whereas Metis-M is only a medium range ATGM (up to 1,5 Km).
Which ATGMs does Malaysia already have in service? I know of Eryx as Short Range man-portable ATGM and Bakthar Shikan as IFV-mounted Long Range ATGM. Anything else by now?
In addition lots of unguided AT-weapons, Carl Gustav, RPG-7, C90-CR (M3)....
Quite confusing all this stuff. It's never cost-effective to use different systems for similar tasks.
weasel1962
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #100
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited: