Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III

[kato]

Yeah a nice 35-40 ton tank with 105mm gun and fancy armor would be a godsend for a LIC environment.

TAM 2IP with composite add-on armor and new fire control. 74 upgrade packages bought by Argentina from Israel.

Armor is a bit crappy though. Assumption is for 30mm APFSDS protection for KE only, but very good performance against HEAT and EFP warheads especially for assymmetric scenarios.

[Kidd]

Therein lies the problem. The moment you go "medium tank" you give up a lot of protection, at which point you wonder... why do you want a medium "tank" then? Yet here in Southeast Asia a lot of countries are going for them - Thailand has its Textron Stingrays, Singapore intends to develop a medium tank on its Bionix IFV chassis, Philippines is also looking around, and Indonesia is now taking delivery of this:

FNSS Kaplan Medium Tank, 35 tons, 105mm rifled gun in a Cockerill turret, STANAG 5 armor.

[Weirdo]

It seems to me that the big issue is that nobody really wants to deploy things as heavy and expensive as 70-ton MBTs against asymmetric enemies that you know are highly unlikely to have tanks of their own.

On the other hand, 100mm+ guns are REALLY useful, and the amount of firepower a single trooper or squad can deploy without needing a tank of their own keeps going up.

[kato]

Yet here in Southeast Asia a lot of countries are going for them

That's because for the most part these countries do not have the territory for traditional duel situations. Thailand sticks with 52-ton Chinese VT-4 replacing their M60 as their main armoured force and both Indonesia and Singapore maintain a sizable Leo 2 component in their armoured forces though.

Brunei, the Philippines and Malaysia only maintain token armoured forces at all (1, 2 and 6 companies respectively, mostly light fire support units rather than tanks). Indonesia, despite considerable numbers, doesn't even consider armour a combat arm but a combat support element much like artillery.

[Kidd]

That's because for the most part these countries do not have the territory for traditional duel situations. Thailand sticks with 52-ton Chinese VT-4 replacing their M60 as their main armoured force and both Indonesia and Singapore maintain a sizable Leo 2 component in their armoured forces though.

Brunei, the Philippines and Malaysia only maintain token armoured forces at all (1, 2 and 6 companies respectively, mostly light fire support units rather than tanks). Indonesia, despite considerable numbers, doesn't even consider armour a combat arm but a combat support element much like artillery.

Malaysia has 48 Polish T-72s. Indonesia has got 100 Leopard 2RIs, which for the region is considerable. Brunei is a non-starter really :D and the Pinoys can't afford zip.

Actually the prospect of facing insurgents is exactly why I think heavy tanks are de rigeur; we haven't seen firepower greater than RPG-7s in the hands of non-state actors here, so why invest in heavy Leo 2RIs AND Pandur IIs (see below) AND medium tanks? In the "hi-lo mix" we have the Leos which are invincible to RPGs and Pandur-30mms for cheap but crunchy firepower, why add what are basically tracked crunchies with 105mm guns? Why add a tank that CAN'T "tank"...?

Pandur II with Ares 30mm turret

[Kidd]

M1A2 Sep v3 Abrams, now with Trophy APS



This is SAIC/STK's model of their entry for the latest US Medium Tank program (yes, here comes Singapore again). Same Cockerill turret as the FNSS-Pindad Kaplan above.

[Matti]

Therein lies the problem. The moment you go "medium tank" you give up a lot of protection, at which point you wonder... why do you want a medium "tank" then? Yet here in Southeast Asia a lot of countries are going for them - Thailand has its Textron Stingrays, Singapore intends to develop a medium tank on its Bionix IFV chassis, Philippines is also looking around, and Indonesia is now taking delivery of this:

FNSS Kaplan Medium Tank, 35 tons, 105mm rifled gun in a Cockerill turret, STANAG 5 armor.

I believe T-55 medium tank is still going strong (with upgrade kits) in Middle East, parts of Eastern Europe, and Africa. It just sticks around like Vedette medium tank (with and without upgrades).

[I am Belch II]

Looks like you put a 105mm gun turret on a M2 Bradley....and call it a tank.

[kato]

I believe T-55 medium tank is still going strong (with upgrade kits) in Middle East, parts of Eastern Europe, and Africa. It just sticks around like Vedette medium tank (with and without upgrades).

In (South-)Eastern Europe T-55 are in reserve depots in Serbia and Romania, with Romania actively fielding the derivative TR-85M1 - which were only built in the late 80s, are considerably heavier at around 50 tons and better-armored.

In the Middle East it's pretty much Syria (they had 2,000 still only a decade ago!) and Iran (a few hundred, upgraded) that use them with a small number (two batallions) remaining in Iraq.

[The Eagle]

I have personally laid eyes on at least two T-55s in Iraqi Pershmerga service, too.  They had Kurdish flags painted onto the sides of the turrets and were dug into laagers watching the road north from the Kirkuk/Hawijah area towards Irbil.  Probably looted from Iraqi Army stocks circa 2003, but I never could find a Pesh willing to talk about it.

[kato]

Romanian TR-85M1:


The 14 tons (40% !) extra weight in comparison to the T-55 went into two things: lengthening the chassis slightly to fit a new 860 hp engine and additional applique armor. The armour is broadly on par with a T-72B.

Despite other internet rumours there is no effort underway to upgrade them in any way btw.

[glitterboy2098]

Actually the prospect of facing insurgents is exactly why I think heavy tanks are de rigeur; we haven't seen firepower greater than RPG-7s in the hands of non-state actors here, so why invest in heavy Leo 2RIs AND Pandur IIs (see below) AND medium tanks? In the "hi-lo mix" we have the Leos which are invincible to RPGs and Pandur-30mms for cheap but crunchy firepower, why add what are basically tracked crunchies with 105mm guns? Why add a tank that CAN'T "tank"...?

because for the most part, the countries interested in medium tanks are looking to increase the numbers of tank type guns they have to work with.. but either don't want to or can't spend the budget to get full blown MBT's in the numbers they need. Medium tanks are more affordable (because they lack the heavy armor and other systems of an MBT), are still somewhat survivable against the typical man-carried light antitank weapons, and give you the firepower you need.

much like the high-low mix with aircraft, getting a small number of full MBT's and supporting them with a large number of medium tank's works out better for them. they can afford it, in conventional war the MBT's can carry the main weight of the fighting, with the medium's supplying some extra firepower. in counter insurgency and/or peacekeeping duties, the medium tanks can provide tank firepower for the roles where it is useful, without having the risk of losing a full MBT, or the expense of having to ship a full MBT overseas.

it is also worth noting that a lot of the nations going in for them right now are nations that built combat doctrines around medium tanks.. be they old M-48's the US sold them during the cold war, or the T-55's the soviets did. switching to full MBT's would require a major overhual of their combat and training doctrines.. easier to just get a new medium tank design to replace those aging ones, and change only what is required to handle the newer capabilities.

[kato]

the countries interested in medium tanks are looking to increase the numbers of tank type guns they have to work with..

For the most part they're straightforward replacements of previous light tanks with big guns, in South East Asia in particular (there isn't really much of a market elsewhere) models like AMX-13, Scorpion and M41 Walker Bulldog.

Along with some rather specialized systems, such as the AMX-10PAC90 as amphibious IFVs with 90mm guns used in single-batallion-strength by the Indonesian Marines, since replaced by - pretty obscure - amphibious 6x6 AFV with 90mm guns bought from South Korea (Hanwha Tarantula, derived from the Doosan Black Fox which was developed for a Korean tender but not procured there).

[ANS Kamas P81]

Indonesia, despite considerable numbers, doesn't even consider armour a combat arm but a combat support element much like artillery.

Less about Indonesia and more about a fictional country's military I'm writing up, this one struck me.  General attitudes towards combat is "infantry is the core of warfare, everything else supports them" from what I understand, but what if you end up with a different mindset?  Treat the tank as the descendant of the medieval armored knight, take the 'heavy cavalry' as the core of the army, and use the infantry as a support unit for the tank.

Hardware wise, I was playing in the 1970-1972 timeframe; the tanks I've been conceptually playing with are M26 Pershings as an 'older generation' primary MBT, Conquerors as the 'ultimate MBT' idea that got a moderate production run (and diesel upgrades) and still stick around in some numbers, while the Pershings are being replaced with AMX-30 style 'fast cavalry' units.  I suppose that would push the development of APCs to haul the infantry around fast enough to keep up with the tank, with that mindset.  The tank is the key of warfare, so you have to find a way to let the infantry keep up; same with the artillery but SPGs are at least a pleasant thing.  (Nice thing about the AMX-30 is that 155mm AU-F1 arty turret)

So...outside of the obvious myopic focus on the armor, what kinds of mindset, doctrine, and whatnot would this engender in a military?  I'd also say there's still an aristocracy in the country, so 'bluebloods enroll as officers and go armor' is a thing as well.  How does that affect formations and such?

Meanwhile, have a video game M26 Pershing with a T99 rocket launcher set (44 4.5" rockets is gonna hurt)

[truetanker]

Why not use AMX-VCI as your basis APC, after all it is a AMX-13! Or a AMX-10P at the vary least...

TT

[Kidd]

because for the most part, the countries interested in medium tanks are looking to increase the numbers of tank type guns they have to work with...

...are still somewhat survivable against the typical man-carried light antitank weapons, and give you the firepower you need...

...it is also worth noting that a lot of the nations going in for them right now are nations that built combat doctrines around medium tanks.. be they old M-48's the US sold them during the cold war, or the T-55's the soviets did. switching to full MBT's would require a major overhual of their combat and training doctrines.. easier to just get a new medium tank design to replace those aging ones, and change only what is required to handle the newer capabilities.

Previously nobody here could afford any heavy tanks at all, so they bought light tanks like Scorpion and AMX-13 to train up their armour capability (also because the countryside was less developed and more marshy). The moment they could afford it they bought better tanks.

There are loads of RPG-7s and LAWs in the region, though non-state actors here are much less likely to get their hands on ATGMs. To me it makes very little sense to get medium tanks with the armour of IFVs just for the sake of that 105mm gun.

So really that is the crux of the whole thing - how handy is it to (arguably) sacrifice some numbers of 120mm and 30mm gun-carriers, to spend some bucks kitting out a 105mm capability?

[ANS Kamas P81]

Why not use AMX-VCI as your basis APC, after all it is a AMX-13! Or a AMX-10P at the vary least...

TT

Not a bad idea, though I was actually half thinking of using the MT-LB as an APC and tracked prime-mover - I like the low slung looks of it, and the amphibious capacity is nice.  Then again, sticking with purely NATO gear is probably best; it was an original setting to begin with so I was less worried about cherrypicking things at the time.  AMX-VCI certainly works; I suppose prior to that there'd be something similar for the 1940s era to follow the Pershings and Conquerors into battle with its crunchies.  Maybe even some Kangaroo Pershings, especially as the AMX-30s come online to replace them?

Dopey ideas.

[kato]

I was actually half thinking of using the MT-LB as an APC and tracked prime-mover

Just use the M39/T41 as prime mover and APC, or even its originally-rejected derivative M44. These were basically M18 Hellcat hulls rebuilt as APCs; the M39 simply removing the turret and placing 7 infantry in the open-top compartment, and the M44 rebuilding the same hull with a superstructure, rear doors and benches for 24 soldiers.

The M44 was rejected by the Army as too large and not fitting its squad-based infantry carrying needs, but if one obliterates infantry as the hinge of battle and reduces it say to e.g. security functions and such then a half-platoon vehicle would fit the fluff.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I can't imagine that too many infantry were that enthusiastic about riding in a no-armored Hellcat.

[Feenix74]

Less about Indonesia and more about a fictional country's military I'm writing up, this one struck me.  General attitudes towards combat is "infantry is the core of warfare, everything else supports them" from what I understand, but what if you end up with a different mindset?  Treat the tank as the descendant of the medieval armored knight, take the 'heavy cavalry' as the core of the army, and use the infantry as a support unit for the tank.

Don't forget that in South-East Asia, there are not sweeping plains for "heavy cavalry" to play set piece maneuver warfare against each other. If you look back a WW2 and Vietnam experiences, the tanks are very much there to support infantry who are fighting hand-to-hand to hold or take ground, much of which is jungle or overgrown, even the developed areas have built in "tank traps" such as rice patty fields or palm-oil plantations or dense urban areas with very narrow streets. Much of the infrastructure such as roads and bridges simply cannot support a 70-ton tank which then channels and funnels your heavy cavalry into choke/ambush points and kill zones.

[glitterboy2098]

IMO a lot of SEasia's lack of emphasis on cavalry forces is just the terrain.. a lot more jungle, forests, rugged mountains, swamps, wetlands, and other terrain where armored cav just doesn't do as well as the main offensive force.

[Kidd]

There are some difficulties, but not impassable. From what I hear a lot of the problem is snagging on bits of trees and a slower progress than normal, making the tanks more like lumbering assault guns rather than nimble strike units.

Leopard 2RI on exercise. The Indonesian army has also invested heavily in LSTs to enable deployment to the innumerable islands they have to secure.

[sadlerbw]

Forgive my ignorance here, but a couple questions:

1) I thought a large part of the 'problem' with the big M1 was that it kept outgrowing the landing craft that were supposed to get it to shore when you need to take it some place where you were not invited. Basically, the weight kept creeping up, and the landing craft either didn't have the structural support, engine power, or bouyancy to deal with an 80-ton lump. I didn't think the raw cost of an M1 was really what was making folks look at 'medium' tanks.

2) What are you getting out of a medium tank that an IFV with a 20mm cannon and a couple box launchers of TOW's or Hellfires doesn't get you? Armor? Mobility? Destructive capability? We seem to be able to stick quad-packed Hellfires of just about anything these days, and they ought to generally be able to kill anything a 105mm gun will kill. Plus, you can use a much smaller and less complicated turret with something like a 20mm cannon for all those jobs that you don't really need something as big as a 105mm to do. So, why down-size a MBT instead of slapping missiles on an IFV?

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Actual tankers, I have a question:

On another forum, someone inexplicably started talking about throwing hand grenades down the barrel of a tank as a tactic.  Is this as dumb as it sounds or is there somehow some validity to it?

[Weirdo]

2) What are you getting out of a medium tank that an IFV with a 20mm cannon and a couple box launchers of TOW's or Hellfires doesn't get you? Armor? Mobility? Destructive capability? We seem to be able to stick quad-packed Hellfires of just about anything these days, and they ought to generally be able to kill anything a 105mm gun will kill. Plus, you can use a much smaller and less complicated turret with something like a 20mm cannon for all those jobs that you don't really need something as big as a 105mm to do. So, why down-size a MBT instead of slapping missiles on an IFV?

A cannon gets a lot more than four shots, and armies use those shots for a lot more than killing other AFVs. There's a lot to be said for knowing that the known sniper position, machine gun nest, RPG team behind a cinder block wall, or technical with a TOW launcher in the bed is down with one shot and NEVER getting back up again.

[glitterboy2098]

2) What are you getting out of a medium tank that an IFV with a 20mm cannon and a couple box launchers of TOW's or Hellfires doesn't get you? Armor? Mobility? Destructive capability? We seem to be able to stick quad-packed Hellfires of just about anything these days, and they ought to generally be able to kill anything a 105mm gun will kill. Plus, you can use a much smaller and less complicated turret with something like a 20mm cannon for all those jobs that you don't really need something as big as a 105mm to do. So, why down-size a MBT instead of slapping missiles on an IFV?

partly cost. a single tank shell is a couple hundred bucks. even an early generation ATGM is hundreds of thousands. you have to fire a certain number of shots each year in training, stockpile a certain larger number in case of war.
you can also carry a lot more shells.. shells are relatively small, and the gun can be loaded inside the turret. and can be used with an autoloader. missile are large, and have to be fired from boxes on the outside of the vehicle.. reloading has to be by hand by a crewmember who is forced to expose themselves to do it.
also partly versatility. with a tank gun you can load HE and blow in walls. load canister, and clear streets. you also can load APFSDS and defeat composite and/or reactive armor that will stop a ATGM's HEAT warhead cold.

[Baldur Mekorig]

Therein lies the problem. The moment you go "medium tank" you give up a lot of protection, at which point you wonder... why do you want a medium "tank" then?

 In the case of Argentina with the TAM? Basically the weight. At 30.5 tns its light enough to use all the bridges in the national road system, and be capable of cross country in a country full of rivers. Also cheaper to produce than a heavy tank.

[Weirdo]

There is definitely something to be said for knowing where an invader's heavy tanks will be slowed down or stopped while yours will be just fine. Same philosophy as vibrabombs. :)

[kato]

The Indonesian army has also invested heavily in LSTs to enable deployment to the innumerable islands they have to secure.

Technically, it's more that they had to buy new ships capable of beaching with Leopards on board. So they're now building the Teluk Bintuni class, carries 10 Leos max, first one commissioned 2016. Two further ones building omitting the helo hangar, with three more planned after that. Their older US-, East-German- and Korean-built LSTs (and even the Korean-designed LPDs) aren't strengthened for that kinda load - the shipyard that built the Teluk Bintuni even highlights the fact that no previous Indonesian landing ship could carry the Leos.

On another forum, someone inexplicably started talking about throwing hand grenades down the barrel of a tank as a tactic.  Is this as dumb as it sounds or is there somehow some validity to it?

There's been videos from Syria of people doing that for the past couple years, possibly that's why people talk about it. Was already used in WW2 too, and is supposedly taught as a last-ditch anti-tank tactic having nothing else available - and even then you preferably should use thermite grenades so you at least damage the barrel.

As a tactic it's as dumb as it sounds mostly because it will put you straight in the sights for secondary armament provided the crew maintains close-in awareness. And with normal hand grenades you then either depend on an open breech or a round in the chamber to actually have any success at all with that; plus of course a slightly elevated barrel so it will slide down. In the most common video from Syria a first grenade has zero effect while apparently afterwards the tank crew chambered a round to fire it off and then had that hit and explode in the chamber from a second hand grenade.

[Charlie 6]

Forgive my ignorance here, but a couple questions:

1) I thought a large part of the 'problem' with the big M1 was that it kept outgrowing the landing craft that were supposed to get it to shore when you need to take it some place where you were not invited. Basically, the weight kept creeping up, and the landing craft either didn't have the structural support, engine power, or bouyancy to deal with an 80-ton lump. I didn't think the raw cost of an M1 was really what was making folks look at 'medium' tanks.

Yes, no, maybe.  The follow-up to the LCAC and LCU should mitigate the lift issue. They will still land one and two vehicles per craft but won't be in an overload situation doing so.