Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 176

Thread: Military Discussion : Should AMX 13-SM1 be replace ?

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    2,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Dawn
    f16s and f18s cannot completely replace e a10s in e CAS role! they are not made to take small arms fire or AA guns in a low & slow flying close air support mission...
    The A10 is more vulnerable to enemy fighters & SAMs. At least f16s & f18s can defend themselves and hit burner to get out of dodge. Slow flying is not a requirement for CAS, a number of other attack aircraft use jet engines. (eg. A4 (also retired) & Su-25, although both cannot hit mach 1 but are still faster than the A10.)

    A10s should only be used when
    1) total air superiority is achieved (eg. f16s/f15s escorts overhead)
    2) SAMS & triple-A are suppressed (eg. f16s/f18s taking out radar stations)
    for total effect. Notice how f16s can do so many things! (Yes, I'm a '16 fan )

    The problem with going slow is that it can be seen-> it can be hit -> it can be killed. The US military has evolved to developing SMART & stand-off weapons delivered by stealth/multirole aircraft. Why send 3 flights (1 flight f15 escort, 1 flight f18 SAM suppression, 1 flight a10 CAS) when 1-2 flight f16 can complete the job in 1/2 the time?

    I love the A10 for the power it possesses, but to continue to fund it for 1 specific role which other aircraft can do as well is not cost effective.


  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    2,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by singscott
    That might be the way our armour is heading. Stryker is a 8x8 vehicle.
    I still think the best way to stop an enemy tank is to have a bigger and badder tank.

  3. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    www.whltelightphotographer.com
    Posts
    1,834

    Default

    Stryker is something the US army is heading, why they are not giving it up. As history have shown. Every armour vehicles they have come up have some stupid flaw they have to fit. Stryker case it is not C130 friendly which it is suppose to be. M2 Bradley in the begining have tow anti tank missile housing refusing to open it's hatch door thus the missile exploded in the vehicle. M551 Sheridan is the biggest screw up they have. It suppose to able to travel under water instead the crew got drown on the water trail, or it can air drop but the track come off once it drop from the C130. Then the gun can fire missile and anti armour round . But those can fire missile can't fire anti armour round. Then can fire anti armour round but can't fire missile. M1 have the equal funny jokes

  4. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    www.whltelightphotographer.com
    Posts
    1,834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by foxtwo
    I still think the best way to stop an enemy tank is to have a bigger and badder tank.
    You have to know it coming first, to see first, to see better, to hit it first and ran faster, then his friend wouldn't return a flavour. The power of information battle.

  5. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    www.whltelightphotographer.com
    Posts
    1,834

    Default

    You guys should check out The AC-130H "Spectre". It is ten time more powerful then an A10 warhog. It the ground troop and armour nightmare. It can operate in the night, you just turn on your vehcile engine this baby will be on your ass. IT have

    one 25mm GAU-12 Gatling gun (firing 1,800 rounds per minute)
    one 40mm L60 Bofors cannon (with a selectable firing rate of single shot or
    120 rounds per minute)
    one 105mm M-102 Howitzer cannon (firing 6 to 10 rounds per minute

    Defensive systems include a countermeasures dispensing system that releases chaff and flares to counter radar infrared-guided antiaircraft missiles

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tampines, Singapore.
    Posts
    1,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by singscott
    That might be the way our armour is heading. Stryker is a 8x8 vehicle.
    I don't think the "AMX-13 replacement" is going to be wheeled. The Primus is still tracked. The Bionix is going to be around for a while. The ATTC also rubber tracked.

    I once drove an M113 on a slope on the advanced driving circuit in the rainy season, I'm runnning full throttle yet the tank is stuck on the slope, neither going forward nor backwards! I had to jiggle the steering sticks very carefully (so I don't end up horizontal to the slope and roll over) and slowly ease off the gas to gostan down the hill, in forward gear!

    you think 8 wheels can do that?

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    2,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by singscott
    You have to know it coming first, to see first, to see better, to hit it first and ran faster, then his friend wouldn't return a flavour. The power of information battle.
    We have the UAV drones. And i think it's possible for us to develope something like IVIS for our own tanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by singscott
    You guys should check out The AC-130H "Spectre". It is ten time more powerful then an A10 warhog. It the ground troop and armour nightmare. It can operate in the night, you just turn on your vehcile engine this baby will be on your ass. IT have

    one 25mm GAU-12 Gatling gun (firing 1,800 rounds per minute)
    one 40mm L60 Bofors cannon (with a selectable firing rate of single shot or
    120 rounds per minute)
    one 105mm M-102 Howitzer cannon (firing 6 to 10 rounds per minute

    Defensive systems include a countermeasures dispensing system that releases chaff and flares to counter radar infrared-guided antiaircraft missiles
    again something i wouldn't send out without escorts. The only way to ensure servivability is not have anything shooting at you in the first place. If the defensive systems fail then it's up to the prop-plane magic dragon to out-maneuvor the missile and I wouldn't bet on that happening.

  8. #68
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    www.whltelightphotographer.com
    Posts
    1,834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hwchoy
    I don't think the "AMX-13 replacement" is going to be wheeled. The Primus is still tracked. The Bionix is going to be around for a while. The ATTC also rubber tracked.

    I once drove an M113 on a slope on the advanced driving circuit in the rainy season, I'm runnning full throttle yet the tank is stuck on the slope, neither going forward nor backwards! I had to jiggle the steering sticks very carefully (so I don't end up horizontal to the slope and roll over) and slowly ease off the gas to gostan down the hill, in forward gear!

    you think 8 wheels can do that?
    Yes I ever ride in a 27 ton 6x6 recovery MB 2636 vehicle up on a up climb slope I was looking at the sky where I sit. The powerful vehicle got up the hill to recover a Man truck 5 ton and tow it down hill. That where wheeled vehicle have the advanage. They are multi terren. Last time wheeled armour vehicle was not in flavour because of their tyres are not ballet proof. The new armour wheeled vehicle got auto inflate system in case tyre got hit. That will allow to move to safer ground. Then there many tyres.Heck even our normal army truck have that technology too. Hahaha. Oh ya which easier, faster and safer to replace track or tyres..

  9. #69
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    www.whltelightphotographer.com
    Posts
    1,834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by foxtwo
    We have the UAV drones. And i think it's possible for us to develope something like IVIS for our own tanks.



    again something i wouldn't send out without escorts. The only way to ensure servivability is not have anything shooting at you in the first place. If the defensive systems fail then it's up to the prop-plane magic dragon to out-maneuvor the missile and I wouldn't bet on that happening.
    It is very hard to down one of this baby. In it's thirty service from ac130a to ac130h there only one such air craft was shot down in 1991. Yes it is "SLOW" but that why is powerful it pump more rounds into the ground,a column of vehicles is sitting ducks to it and if operate at night you know it coming will it start it's pumping act on your ass.

  10. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    2,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by singscott
    It is very hard to down one of this baby. In it's thirty service from ac130a to ac130h there only one such air craft was shot down in 1991. Yes it is "SLOW" but that why is powerful it pump more rounds into the ground,a column of vehicles is sitting ducks to it and if operate at night you know it coming will it start it's pumping act on your ass.
    I'm afraid you got it wrong.
    "Although the AC-130 gunship programs were considered highly successful, the slow-moving airplane was very susceptible to ground fire. Consequently, eight AC-130s have been lost during combat operations. The first casualty took place when tail number 54-1629 was hit over Laos and crashed during a landing attempt at Ubon, Thailand. A second AC-130 fell to enemy fire over Laos in April 1970. The third and fourth losses took place within hours of each other in the spring of 1972, and a fifth was shot down a few weeks later while supporting friendly forces during the siege of An Loc in South Vietnam. A sixth gunship was shot down over Laos in December 1972. A total of 75 crewmembers were lost in the AC-130 mission in Southeast Asia, before hostilities ended in 1975. Since that time two other AC-130s have fallen in both Kuwait and Somalia.

    On 31 January 1991, the first AC-130H was lost in combat while supporting coalition forces engaged in ground combat during the battle of Khafji in Operation Desert Storm. A second aircraft supporting operations in Somalia was lost on 15 March 1994 when the 105mm cannon exploded while the aircraft was airborne." http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/ac130.asp

    It is SLOW getting there and SLOW getting out. What if the column of vehicles include SAM & triple-A? Or even a platoon of anti-air infantry, can it dodge 6 missles fired at it? Yes, when it gets into gear it is incredible! but only against anything that doesn't shoot back.
    Last edited by foxtwo; 28th January 2005 at 08:47 PM.

  11. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tampines, Singapore.
    Posts
    1,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by singscott
    Yes I ever ride in a 27 ton 6x6 recovery MB 2636 vehicle up on a up climb slope I was looking at the sky where I sit. The powerful vehicle got up the hill to recover a Man truck 5 ton and tow it down hill. That where wheeled vehicle have the advanage. They are multi terren.
    that is quite surprising, wheeled vehicles are multi-terrain. what I was trying to imply was that our terrain could get so slippery that even tracks could not generate enough grip not to say wheels.

    I would really like to see a demo where a tracked vehicle gets bogged down while a wheeled one can get out. This was one of the hoo-hah in the Stryker argument. Honestly I haven't seen many 8×8 but logically tracks would give more grip, but a real demo would be good to see. *I like tracks but I'm not a biggot*

    as for changing tyres, come on, how often do you have to change tracks

  12. #72
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    www.whltelightphotographer.com
    Posts
    1,834

    Default

    Sorry got it wrong, you are right. I don't see it properly, the web page I was reading was saiding the AC130H not the entire AC130 range. Just confirm it. Thanks for clearing that up. But still it a nightmare to have a big gunship shooting at your ass. It is still hard to down one in chao when combine with other units it is a force to be wrecken with. A10 is slow as well infact an A10 will try to take an anti aircraft tanks with maverick missile first before going in with the guns. But still it get the job done. AC130H just need to be there pumping highly powerful and accurate round to the target area. Will get the job doen better. Every millitary gear have some kind of death spot if it so flawess then the rest of us is dead meat Hahaha

  13. #73
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    www.whltelightphotographer.com
    Posts
    1,834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hwchoy
    that is quite surprising, wheeled vehicles are multi-terrain. what I was trying to imply was that our terrain could get so slippery that even tracks could not generate enough grip not to say wheels.

    I would really like to see a demo where a tracked vehicle gets bogged down while a wheeled one can get out. This was one of the hoo-hah in the Stryker argument. Honestly I haven't seen many 8×8 but logically tracks would give more grip, but a real demo would be good to see. *I like tracks but I'm not a biggot*

    as for changing tyres, come on, how often do you have to change tracks
    Hey I am from armour also. I have indent alot of tracks. The auto inflate system can let the operater change it tyre pressure to grap the ground better. But for raming stuff like trees capability of tracks are better

  14. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tampines, Singapore.
    Posts
    1,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by singscott
    Hey I am from armour also. I have indent alot of tracks. The auto inflate system can let the operater change it tyre pressure to grap the ground better. But for raming stuff like trees capability of tracks are better
    yah I guess. in Ex. Walla… series some of the terrain are damn rocky man, the M113 tracks came out OK minus half the rubber pads. wonder how well the 8×8 will do there. I heard the aussies send some LAV to Timor, but then replaced them with M113 after couple of weeks.

  15. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The 13th floor
    Posts
    546

    Default

    Jus my view;

    Singapore is too build-up for big vehicles, not to mention big tanks. The roads are narrow, trees everywhere & bridges may not hold the weight of heavy tanks. Dun forget, there'll definitely be cars, buses etc blocking the roads during wartime. No way a tank, even small ones, can fully move around easily.

    Thus, if we are to fight a war in Singapore itself, mobility is very important, hence, a light, fast 4WD vehicle with anti-tank weapon is good enough, it can hide behind buildings etc. Out manoeuvre any wheel-based or track tanks. Hit & run. Support with infantry. our drains network is a very useful tools. It's a maze down there.

    If we are fighting outside Singapore, then mid-size tanks is the choice. Air-drop them behind enemy-line etc.
    They can still fall back to support in Singapore if there's a need. Not too big, still managable. Better than big tanks.

    We dun need to destroy those big tanks with thick armour, jus disabled them is good enough. Thus, an weapon(be it handheld or mounted on a jeep) with enough power to knock off their tracks will do. Once it is down, the infantry can go in for the final kill.

  16. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    2,522

    Default

    Their tanks will be advancing with infantry too. Maybe you'll be lucky to disable a tank and force it to withdraw for repairs but you'll never get to take it out with infantry.

    The shortfalls of AT missiles are that they are generally wire-guided. Hence they have limited range and can't be shot in distances filled with obstacles/rubble which will tangle up the wires. The AT missile can take between 20-60s to cross 2,000 to 4,000m as opposed to a tank cannon shell which takes only 1-3s for the same distance. The AT gunner needs to stay on target during that 60s to ensure a hit. If the enemy saw the missile launch, they can either pop smoke and attempt to hide or open fire at the launch vehicle and cause the missile to miss.

    You want to stop an armoured assault? Use tanks. Hit and run works to a degree, but Singapore doesn't have enough land for such tactics. With our vast road infrastructure, the enemy will be rolling down every main road and securing every estate. How many car parks can the 4WDs hide in?

  17. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The 13th floor
    Posts
    546

    Default

    As I already mentioned, Singapore is so buildup that battle will fought in close combat. Not much use of main battle tank long range. I'm not against tanks, generally, I feel that big tanks are not practically in buildup area. Mid & small tanks probably are the better choice. 4WD can drive under void deck from block to block. Dun be surprise that we may have to fight hand to hand using ur rifle-butt due to urban warfare.
    we can hardly find open area in Singapore. I can't imagine what's it will be like in 10 to 20yr times. All of SG will be be filled with buildings.

    But to think of it, if we are to fight in Singapore mainland, we are already losing the war. Every corners we turn, we hit, are all real estate & lives.

  18. #78
    Senior Member King Tiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    In the heart of SengKang
    Posts
    5,882

    Default The importance of Armour division

    Some have indicate in the earlier post that tanks are not suitable for Jungle terrain.
    While I agree that armour have difficuities in movement in some areas of Jungle terrain, but it is a MUST to have.

    During the Battle of Singapore in 1942, Japanese tanks landed in Lim Chu Kang, together with infantry, they punch all the way through Choa Chu Kang and make their way to Bukit Panjang/Bukit Timah area.
    In the Battle of Bukit Timah, 50 Japanese tanks contribute to the break through against tough defensive line by British/Australian/Indian/Dalforce defenders.

    Japanese Tanks at Bukit Timah



    During the Battle of France in 1940, German Panzers outflank the French and the British through the Ardennes Forest.

    Setting aside the issue of logistics, deployment and maintainence problems, Armour possess the firepower, the ability to perform blitzkrieg and an intangible shock waves to the enemy.
    Last edited by King Tiger; 29th January 2005 at 02:49 AM.
    War is one of the most regrettable human activities.

  19. #79
    Senior Member King Tiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    In the heart of SengKang
    Posts
    5,882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evq
    But to think of it, if we are to fight in Singapore mainland, we are already losing the war. Every corners we turn, we hit, are all real estate & lives.
    Totally agree.
    War is one of the most regrettable human activities.

  20. #80
    Senior Member King Tiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    In the heart of SengKang
    Posts
    5,882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jsbn
    Or how about a tank that has the following features?
    - 1x 100mm Artillery Gun
    - 8x Anti-Tank Guided Missiles
    - 2x 50mm Anti-Aircraft Guns
    - 2x 20mm Gattling Guns
    - 2x M203 grenade launchers
    - Can carry up to 1 Platoon of Armoured Troopers with each trooper having a maximum load of 30kg
    - A maximum speed of 150km/h
    - Armour plating thick enuff to sustain direct hits against small arms fire, LAWs and Strafting Fire frm Fighter Planes
    And there u go! All-in-one tank!
    Might as well build a Gundam.
    War is one of the most regrettable human activities.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •