Indonesia also buying Leopard Tanks

sleaguepunter said:
True, no matter how good a weapon is, it only as good as it resupply line is secure. ie. Many german tigers were not destroy by allies forces but scuttled by its own crew after running out of fuel in the battle of the bulge.
Click to expand...

Yes agree. Resupply and logistics are key, not just gung ho charging of the enemy.
 
wuqi256 said:
Armoured infantrymen too. Both protect each other in a way. :)
Click to expand...

As a ex AI trooper, it armour infantry, no ed.

Armour Infantry = panzergrenadier.

Maybe i the only person to be posted to a preferred vocation in NS.
 
sleaguepunter said:
As a ex AI trooper, it armour infantry, no ed.

Armour Infantry = panzergrenadier.

Maybe i the only person to be posted to a preferred vocation in NS.
Click to expand...

Right, apologies, that it is. My brother in law was in AI as well.
Well done for you. :) My actual vocation will shock folks here.
 
Many thought having a "da gong" weapon system mean confirm win. It not true, it only an advtange which can be throw away by lack of training of its crew, wrongly deploy, incomptent commaders, etc etc....

Many militaries lack training in logistic. In my ns and icts, i only done refuel, rearm and resupply on the field twice which were not exactly went according to plan.
 
As for why TNI want Leo2, it could as easy explain by u have i also must have mentality. Simply as that.
 
sleaguepunter said:
Even the mighty US army lack the heavy lifting capabilities of your story. I doubt the chinook can carry the M1Abram that weigh 60plus tons. The M1 main gun outrange the T72 main gun. The the M1 crew have to do was keep out of range of the T72 and shoot. I dont doubt the part where the iraq T72 got shoot from behind but it due to the US calvary units exscute a left hook, race across empty iraq desert and got behind the iraqi main line of resistance. As much as iraqi troops folded spectacularly against the coalition forces but i doubt the veteran of the iraq and iran war will make a mistake of burying tank under the sand without a mean to get out. Once a tank lose mobility, it no better than a fixed position pillbox which can be destroy once position exposed. No armour officer will make that mistake, at least those with half a brain wont.
Click to expand...

my story is based on hearsay from a professed gulf war "expert" who claims to this day he was given sitreps after desert storm for post mortem analysis. agree that it's very hard to imagine the heavy lift of 60-ton tanks, even for a short hop, but thought you'll get a kick out of the story. i knew about the burying of iraqi soldiers in trenches by cevs (saw footage of that and collaborated by veterans), but the heli-lift of m1a1s is a bit of a stretch. the ch-47d was equipped with new engines prior to the war to lift up to 26k lbs, and 60 long tons would be over 134k lbs, which is 5 times the payload of a chinook, even if upgraded with more powerful engines. the closest in the us navy and marines heli lift capability is the ch-53e sea stallion, but in the gulf war, the sea dragon version mh-53e was confined to mine clearing ops in the gulf off kuwait. concerning iraqi tanks burrowed halfway into the sand, there was footage of that on cnn and other news sources over 2 decades ago.
 
Last edited:
eatshitndie said:
http://www.beforeus.com/satellite_redsea.html

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-02-13/news/1991044061_1_iraqi-army-decoys-arabian-sand

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-equipment-intro.htm
(5th paragraph)

1991 accounts of iraqi tank units buried in sand to avoid detection from ground forces. iraqis were still dumb even after fighting the iranians in the 80s.
Click to expand...

the problem with news report is the news junkies dunno what they are seeing even with the evidence standing in front of them and had to count on official army reports to fill their own stories to their news editors. to report US army going in blind because iraqi defense emplacements were under the sands were plain BS. even in the 80s, NASA already developed the ground radar satellites to find hidden soviet missile silos, so there shd be no problem vectoring the satellites to the iraqi/kuwaiti/arabian borders to get the truth picture of the iraqi defense system.

as for the buried in the sand theory, maybe iraqi did buried the old T54/55 tanks but i doubt they did it with the slight better quality T72 that the Republician Guards were equipped with. T72 moved into dug in position and cover by camo net which the T72 can reverse out more possible than "buried" in the sands as reported by half arsed journalists who ignorant with military tactics.
 
sleaguepunter said:
the problem with news report is the news junkies dunno what they are seeing even with the evidence standing in front of them and had to count on official army reports to fill their own stories to their news editors. to report US army going in blind because iraqi defense emplacements were under the sands were plain BS. even in the 80s, NASA already developed the ground radar satellites to find hidden soviet missile silos, so there shd be no problem vectoring the satellites to the iraqi/kuwaiti/arabian borders to get the truth picture of the iraqi defense system.

as for the buried in the sand theory, maybe iraqi did buried the old T54/55 tanks but i doubt they did it with the slight better quality T72 that the Republician Guards were equipped with. T72 moved into dug in position and cover by camo net which the T72 can reverse out more possible than "buried" in the sands as reported by half arsed journalists who ignorant with military tactics.
Click to expand...

Agree, you bury older stuff so that at least they have a better chance but sending their best tanks into sand trenches and then fixing it such that they sacrifice 100% the mobility of their latest tanks (one of the prized factors for a tank) seems stretching it a little.
 
Mobility is the cornerstone of armour warfare. Take those reports on iraqi incompentence with a pinch of salt. Even saf hslf arse part timer officers also not so dumb to trade mobility for static defense.
 
There also a different between dug in and buried in the sands. Buried in the sand is dig a hole and drop the tank inside with no hope of getting out. But dug in mean dig and build a berm with a small sloping ramp and drive the tank behind the berm exposing only the main gun to enemy fire. Alternative positions to be dig for the tank to switch positions as staying in one position too long after expose position is dangerous as will attract enemy tanks fire or worse infantry missile teams.
 
sleaguepunter said:
There also a different between dug in and buried in the sands. Buried in the sand is dig a hole and drop the tank inside with no hope of getting out. But dug in mean dig and build a berm with a small sloping ramp and drive the tank behind the berm exposing only the main gun to enemy fire. Alternative positions to be dig for the tank to switch positions as staying in one position too long after expose position is dangerous as will attract enemy tanks fire or worse infantry missile teams.
Click to expand...

Yes, mobility is key as even today, radar and even to an extent, known SAM sites are switched often. Yes back to their fallback point and covering each other. Export versions of the T72 really did the Iraqis no favours though.
 
Anyway, Malaysia is the odd man out. Bu Polish tanks. At least Sinkie and Indon buy Leopard 2
 
sleaguepunter said:
There also a different between dug in and buried in the sands. Buried in the sand is dig a hole and drop the tank inside with no hope of getting out. But dug in mean dig and build a berm with a small sloping ramp and drive the tank behind the berm exposing only the main gun to enemy fire. Alternative positions to be dig for the tank to switch positions as staying in one position too long after expose position is dangerous as will attract enemy tanks fire or worse infantry missile teams.
Click to expand...

yup. seen pics of iraqi tanks in dug in position with a ramp. the problem with tank defensive positions even with mobility is air attack. without air superiority, all tanks in day and night movements are sitting ducks. don't really need anti-tank tanks in a desert.
 
The Indons buying leopards so that their kompassus will know wtf to do to destroy these buggers when they invade singapore or singapore dares to try to use the leopards against them....

either way germany wins heeheehe

typical arms dealer tactics....sinkapore should know.... it is the biggest transhipment point and seller for all manner of munitions and ordnance...
 
Last edited:
eatshitndie said:
yup. seen pics of iraqi tanks in dug in position with a ramp. the problem with tank defensive positions even with mobility is air attack. without air superiority, all tanks in day and night movements are sitting ducks. don't really need anti-tank tanks in a desert.
Click to expand...

u must understand, until desert storm operation, nobody, at least those not on nato side, know how far technology had advance since vietnam war. in vietnam war and soviet agfanistan war, both superpowers with complete control of the sky also cannot win. all forgotten that the NVA and mujuhadeen fought a conflict of mobility, no set piece battle, hit and run tactic. even current taliban are not defeated by airpower. Mr Saddam himself also didnt help by being a "Hitler" style leader who not very inform in the latest technologies. but having said that, it was reported even the chinese politburo were caught out by the nintendo style warfare conducted by the coalition forces. Deng was said to be so affected by the daily footage on CNN and he knew the PLA to be totally outclass that he demand PLA to be totally modernized asap.

anti tank defense without overall air superiority not really a problem as there a way to counter. one is by local air superiority or doing the what the Egyptians did during the Yom Kippur War which they denied IDF of local air superiorty by making a massive, interlocking anti air missile belt around it armoured spearheads.

anti tank static defense is not only having own tanks in static positions, it more than that. one can have a massive minefield with AP and AV mines sow together and have part of mines connected by wires to denonate by defender, machiam claymore mine to prevent sappers from clearing the minefield. large anti tank ditches be dug to channel enemy tanks toward a kill zone etc etc.... even the cheapo concentina wire is a good anti vehicle device if the sapper know how to lay the wire.

as much as technologies are important, in the end, it the leadership, motivation and training of the troops that really make a different in the battlefield. every high tech weapons have their weakness, a tank too have it weakness, it just a matter of exploiting it. and i am no joking about arming the mat rempit with rpg7 to stop armour columns.
 
Tuayapeh said:
The Indons buying leopards so that their kompassus will know wtf to do to destroy these buggers when they invade singapore or singapore dares to try to use the leopards against them....

either way germany wins heeheehe

typical arms dealer tactics....sinkapore should know.... it is the biggest transhipment point and seller for all manner of munitions and ordnance...
Click to expand...

Or maybe invade Australia?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LaoTze
China’s High Tech VT-4 Tank Excels in Trials in Algeria
Replies
17
Views
892
Hypocrite-The
Hypocrite-The
JohnTan
Serious PAP SAF Sends 280 Soldiers And 14 Main Battle Tanks For Live Firing Near Russia! Warning Putin Not To Fuck Around With Sinkies!
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
7K
myfoot123
M
steffychun
SAF buys more Leopard 2 tanks than needed. How many more NS deaths?
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
FuckOttoke
F
Papsmearer
PAPsmearer reveals SAF new Hunter AFV is so bad, even Aussies refuse to consider it
2 3
Replies
44
Views
5K
eatshitndie
eatshitndie
steffychun
Serious SAF says not buying more tanks from Auntie Merkel, liar?
Replies
9
Views
2K
steffychun
steffychun
Back
Top