The Centurion Tank replied by edwin3060 @ Wed, 21 May 2008 00:48:16 +0800

edwin3060 — Wed, 21 May 2008 00:48:16 +0800

Depending on the situation-- in an urban fight, you need multiple small groups of tanks supporting infantry, but in a conventional fight, you need a fairly wide and deep frontage of tanks for an armoured advance. Of course, we will probably develop the latter before the former, hence the concentration of the Leo2s in 48 SAR?

The Centurion Tank replied by arball @ Tue, 20 May 2008 20:43:54 +0800

arball — Tue, 20 May 2008 20:43:54 +0800

depends on how they utilize the units lar... as individual fire-support units? or as a whole unit at once (screaming and charging raging metal battalions)

the difference isnt in numbers i guess. but rather in tactics and uses.

The Centurion Tank replied by CM06 @ Tue, 20 May 2008 14:19:06 +0800

CM06 — Tue, 20 May 2008 14:19:06 +0800

Aiyah, dont count the single eggs. Look at the numbers as a whole. How big is the unit going to be? That’s the strategic view and that’s what matters for the people higher up.
.
..
... | || |||
X
XX

, +, – and—.

The Centurion Tank replied by gary1910 @ Mon, 19 May 2008 21:51:07 +0800

gary1910 — Mon, 19 May 2008 21:51:07 +0800

Originally posted by Bionic Animals:

Shh..We all know Singapore has an offensive deterrent strategy. Our Leo2A4 have a lot of jungle and forest area to work in. 66 tanks is not enough. Maybe 200 LEO2A4 still be tahan.

More than 66.

1st order, 66 + 30 spares tanks.

2nd order as reported by ST quoting TCH,36 + unknown number of spares tanks.

So total is 102 + >30 spares.

So let say using the same ratio in the first order , the 2nd one spares tank could be as high as 16, so the total number could be as high as 148 Leo2A4!!!

The Centurion Tank replied by Bionic Animals @ Mon, 19 May 2008 21:21:54 +0800

Bionic Animals — Mon, 19 May 2008 21:21:54 +0800

You do have Centurions in unspecified number.

The Leo2A4 night fighting capability is as good as the M1A1 that won the first Gulf war.

It's a good tank to use in night fighting.

It's much better than T55 or T-72 night fighting capability. Their effective night engagement range are only at up to 800m. an M1A1 could deal a target at 3000m at night with ease.

Your Leo2A4 really have no equal in the region. But you do not have the strategic land to deploy them to be effective fighting machines. A tank is best used in an open terrain fighting in mass not in urban warfare. Unless your govt procure them as an invasion fighting machines.

Shh..We all know Singapore has an offensive deterrent strategy. Our Leo2A4 have a lot of jungle and forest area to work in. 66 tanks is not enough. Maybe 200 LEO2A4 still be tahan.

The Centurion Tank replied by Shotgun @ Wed, 07 May 2008 21:19:10 +0800

Shotgun — Wed, 07 May 2008 21:19:10 +0800

Originally posted by edwin3060:

Hahaha....nice quote, but ultimately didn't work remember? Regardless of the daisy bombs and defoliants, the Viet Cong still could not be rooted out from the underground tunnels.

Anyway, regardless of the anti-tank capability of the old British Centurion tank, it would still pretty much rule in an urban environment, with its HESH and Cannister rounds. With the caveat of proper infantry support of course.

Heh, that was thanks to Yanks thinking that the VCs were coming out of the jungles instead of tunnels. I think it took them a while to kill the vegetation before they went... "Ahh... so they were coming out tunnels! Not jungles!"

Hence the next law went, "First rule of tunnel warfare, Eliminate the tunnels!" And they went along merrily blowing up every thing that resembled a tunnel they saw. Same theory the GIs applied to prostitutes when they couldn't figure out they were really women or ex-men. And its legacy continues today...

The Centurion Tank replied by Sepecat @ Tue, 06 May 2008 23:51:16 +0800

Sepecat — Tue, 06 May 2008 23:51:16 +0800

Wrong - First Rule of Jungle Fighting is Do Not fight the jungle - use it to your advantage.

The Centurion Tank replied by edwin3060 @ Tue, 06 May 2008 14:49:01 +0800

edwin3060 — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:49:01 +0800

Hahaha....nice quote, but ultimately didn't work remember? Regardless of the daisy bombs and defoliants, the Viet Cong still could not be rooted out from the underground tunnels.

Anyway, regardless of the anti-tank capability of the old British Centurion tank, it would still pretty much rule in an urban environment, with its HESH and Cannister rounds. With the caveat of proper infantry support of course.

The Centurion Tank replied by Sepecat @ Tue, 06 May 2008 13:38:18 +0800

Sepecat — Tue, 06 May 2008 13:38:18 +0800

Old Centurion with 105 mm gun is still better than AMX 13 with 75 mm gun.

With new gen ammo, 105 mm is still very potent - I bet it can still knock out a T 72.

The Centurion Tank replied by tankfanatic @ Mon, 05 May 2008 01:22:05 +0800

tankfanatic — Mon, 05 May 2008 01:22:05 +0800

"First rule of jungle warfare, Eliminate the jungle."

i like that.... ok may be not...but i like the quote.

The Centurion Tank replied by Shotgun @ Mon, 05 May 2008 00:56:51 +0800

Shotgun — Mon, 05 May 2008 00:56:51 +0800

Well thats what happens when you don't have tools like B-52s to do some politically incorrect "radical restructuring."

Like the yanks used to say, "First rule of jungle warfare, Eliminate the jungle."

Unfortunately, applying that to urban warfare just doesn't look good when the media gets to it. =D

The Centurion Tank replied by edwin3060 @ Sun, 04 May 2008 16:27:49 +0800

edwin3060 — Sun, 04 May 2008 16:27:49 +0800

Regardless of what is the 'best' terrain for the tank, the 2nd Lebanon War and the Canadians in Iraq have shown that tanks do have a niche role in urban warfare. You use your tools to adapt to the terrain, not adapt the terrain to suit your tools.

The Centurion Tank replied by OldBird69 @ Sun, 04 May 2008 13:46:34 +0800

OldBird69 — Sun, 04 May 2008 13:46:34 +0800

Dear Miracles&Prophecies,

Yes, you're right indeed. Singapore lacks land area and strategic depth to defend. That's why sometimes the best defense is to go on the offensive before the enemy does. Many strategists feel that if S'pore has to fight on its own soil, the war is probably lost.

The Centurion Tank replied by I_love_my_toilet @ Sat, 03 May 2008 17:29:52 +0800

I_love_my_toilet — Sat, 03 May 2008 17:29:52 +0800

i seriously believed that L2 are procured in the form of deterrence.

Tats why most of the stuff we have has no equal in the region, even to the extent of overkill

The Centurion Tank replied by I_love_my_toilet @ Sat, 03 May 2008 17:29:21 +0800

I_love_my_toilet — Sat, 03 May 2008 17:29:21 +0800

i seriously believed that L2 are procured in the form of deterrence.

Tats why most of the stuff we have has no equal in the region, even to the extent of overkill

The Centurion Tank replied by Miracles&Prophecies @ Sat, 03 May 2008 17:20:39 +0800

Miracles&Prophecies — Sat, 03 May 2008 17:20:39 +0800

You do have Centurions in unspecified number.

The Leo2A4 night fighting capability is as good as the M1A1 that won the first Gulf war.

It's a good tank to use in night fighting.

It's much better than T55 or T-72 night fighting capability. Their effective night engagement range are only at up to 800m. an M1A1 could deal a target at 3000m at night with ease.

Your Leo2A4 really have no equal in the region. But you do not have the strategic land to deploy them to be effective fighting machines. A tank is best used in an open terrain fighting in mass not in urban warfare. Unless your govt procure them as an invasion fighting machines.

The Centurion Tank replied by Joe Black @ Thu, 01 May 2008 13:58:25 +0800

Joe Black — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:58:25 +0800

Gary, thanks for the comprehensive explaination.... mine bad, I drop a quick statement without elaborating. Yes, you are absolutely right. Leo2A4 hunter/killer capability is limited to only daytime and at night, the commander essentially relies on the image sent from the gunner's sight, thus the reduced capability.

I think my comment could have been taken out of context. I didn't not say Leo2A4 does NOT have night fighting... just that it is not as good as the latest gens ones. Suffice to say, I think SAF should definitely consider a vision/combat system upgrade to bring the early/mid 90s Leo2A4s to the Leo2A5 or later standards.

The Centurion Tank replied by gary1910 @ Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:01:24 +0800

gary1910 — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:01:24 +0800

Btw, there was a report in a military magazine that the German coy IBD that produced the MEXAS and now the latest AMAP composite armour upgrades has done a special armour upgrades for an unspecified customer for his Leo2A4.

IBD's A4 upgrade called "Leopard 2 A4 Evolution" was done for this customer but has special requirement that the up-armoured A4 must be around 60 metric tons, therefore side skirts are removed to maintain that weight limitation.

Are we the unspecified customer ?

Anyway here a pix of the Leopard 2 A4 Evolution:

http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1193125bn6.jpg

It supposed to Supposed to protect against "heavy ATGMs" over the flanks and handheld AT weapons, IEDs and EFPs "of all calibers" all around. Includes bottom mine protection and "improved slat armor" aft etc.

The Centurion Tank replied by gary1910 @ Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:42:55 +0800

gary1910 — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:42:55 +0800

To be more accurate, Leo2A4 does have night fighting capability, the gunner has thermal imaging unit in EMES-15 gunner sight, and the image from gunner sight could be transmitted fron the gunner to be viewed by the commander.

But since Leo2A4 does not have a CITV, this hunter-killer capability are restricted to daytime, but it can certainly have night figting capability, just not as capable.

Some of the upgrades for the A4 is using Israeli El-Op's CITV etc, this will add in hunter-killer capability during the night which the Danish has done to their A4. In fact , it was rumoured that this upgrades also add in LAHAT missile firing capability to their A4.

So with our close relation to Israel, this is could very well be our upgrades option that we will take.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

The Centurion Tank replied by spartan_6 @ Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:43:02 +0800

spartan_6 — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:43:02 +0800

Leo2A4 dont have good night-hunting cap.???????Wat e frak !!!!

The Centurion Tank replied by Joe Black @ Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:39:25 +0800

Joe Black — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:39:25 +0800

Even with the Leo2A4, the hunter-killer capability is restricted to daytime. Unlike the latest update, Leo2A4 does not have good night fighting capability.

The Centurion Tank replied by Shotgun @ Sun, 27 Apr 2008 02:44:46 +0800

Shotgun — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 02:44:46 +0800

Not tempest lar... Leo2!! LOL!

The Centurion Tank replied by SingaporeTyrannosaur @ Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:20:45 +0800

SingaporeTyrannosaur — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:20:45 +0800

"Gunner! RPG! <CITV override gun to point @ RPG dude, n laze>!"

I seriously double the Tempest has CITV, let alone hunter-killer abilites.

The Centurion Tank replied by Shotgun @ Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:18:32 +0800

Shotgun — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:18:32 +0800

Centurions? I thought its called Tempest? But who gives a hoot now that we got Leopard 2A4s?

The best way to resist and RPG is to shoot the bugger holding it before he shoots.