Order put for 100 Turkish-Indonesian medium battle tanks

[Bilal9]

These amx have amazing guns

Yes they did. Highest Calibre you could fit was a French 105mm canon as shown below in NL service, though 90mm fitments were far more common. Vehicle below weighs 15 tons.

These same French cannons were also fitted to the contemporary 'Curassier', another Austrian light tank. Vehicle below weighs around 15 tons as well.

What most armchair armor experts don't get that these machines (all of which wielded quite a punch for their 13~15 ton weight, including the famed German 'Wiesel'), had their place and time for deployments, and these were where your T-55's and Shermans/Pattons couldn't (or shouldn't) go.

By the way - Lower Medium weight for a tank is considered to be 13-15 tons. Light tanks are in the range of 3-5 tons, such as the Wiesel (see below). These are also sometimes called Tankettes and usually has IFV level guns (below 50mm calibre, usually a 20 or 30mm autocannon).

Wiesel Mk.20 with a 20mm autocannon. Vehicle below weighs around 3 tons. Powered by a VW/Audi 1.9L engine.

Wiesel 2 Air Defence Weapon Carrier. Vehicle below weighs ~5 tons.

Just to clear the confusion, IFV's and Tanks are distinguished by caliber of cannon fitted. Anything that has a 75, 90 or 105mm Cannon fitted cannot be called an IFV. They are by definition tanks, though a bit lighter. Not all IFV's are lightweight, but they can sometimes transform into tanks with addition of guns.

For example, the M1126 Stryker in USMC service is considered a hybrid APC/IFV because of the lack of a large caliber gun.

This was converted to the M1128 Mobile Gun Carrier (and is widely considered a wheeled tank for agile desert warfare, and in main battle tank roles).

 

[Bilal9]

Agility can also depend upon power to weight ratio-gradient of trench/obstacle crossing etc, which this MBT seems to be capable of, not just lighter weight. Shoot and scoot is not always an advantage; for SP Howitzers or MLRS, Yes. For MBT, not really because they have to lead the offensive and expected to survive enemy fire. Scorpion is not an MBT, its a recon vehicle. Is Kaplan Tank going to fill the recon role of MBT role ?

Being Medium weight tanks, the MBT role is different for the Kaplan Tanks. In both Indonesia and Bangladesh, the terrain where these tanks will fight is wholly unsuited for Type 59 tanks at 36~40 tons (or variants thereof), MBT 2000 at 46~50 tons is definitely out-of-the-question. These platforms are too heavy for this type of unprepared jungle/uneven terrain. Take a look please...

With camouflage and ERA, one can ensure that lack of heavy armor can be compensated with properly. Jungle cover takes care of the rest, as this is not open desert situation.

Neither you nor I can confirm what types of threats this Tank will face in battlefield.

Please see above.

That could affect power to weight ratio, impacting mobility. and then how much armor is enough ?

Modern ERA is not overly heavy, relatively speaking.

 

[bluesky]

US Army's fire support and Operational capability/capacity cannot be compared to BD Army. Just a tank by itself is nothing. Stryket MGS can provide fire power to their Stryker Brigades with its 105 mm Gun, but there is a whole aviation, artillery etc component supporting it. On top of that USAF flies in and takes out most targets. For US a medium or light tank is also useful for quick airlift. BD's requirement is mainly coz of its terrain.

You people do not try to understand the differences in terrains in BD and pakistan. Pakistan border land is good for Al-Khalid but not BD border with 46t MBT-2000. Neither it nor its equivalent enemy tanks can move in our terrains. They will be stuck in the thick mud. So, it is no use even if the MBTs have thick armor and shoot 120mm guns.

 

[Signalian]

Being Medium weight tanks, the MBT role is different for the Kaplan Tanks. In both Indonesia and Bangladesh, the terrain where these tanks will fight is wholly unsuited for Type 59 tanks at 36~40 tons (or variants thereof), MBT 2000 at 46~50 tons is definitely out-of-the-question. These platforms are too heavy for this type of unprepared jungle/uneven terrain. Take a look please...

With camouflage and ERA, one can ensure that lack of heavy armor can be compensated with properly. Jungle cover takes care of the rest, as this is not open desert situation.

Please see above.


Modern ERA is not overly heavy, relatively speaking.

You didn't answer my question .
I was hoping to see why you compared Kaplan with Scorpion since they both have different roles to fulfill.

I have an idea about BD terrain. Unfortunately armored Ops are very restricted in such terrains. Camouflage is natural however it depends what kinds of sensors enemy possesses to identify Kaplan as a target. As for ERA; there are issues of infantry operating closely with Tanks and also what kind of protection ERA can offer on its own. Since Infantry will be operating closely with tanks, the ATGM threat could be neutralized. As for more armor, again ERA is not the only solution for more armored protection. Yes ERA doesn't add much to weight but i didnt have ERA in mind.

If Kaplan replaces Type-69 G , which im assuming is up gunned to 120 mm, the armament comes down to 105 mm of Kaplan. Seems that mobility is preferred over fire power .

How was service of Type-69 G seen in BD Army ? Satisfactory ?
There is still a heavier variant of MBT-2000 in service, which areas would that operate in ?
Is Kaplan amphibious ?
A wheeled, amphibious Tank could have been an option too ? Considering BTR APCs are wheeled

You people do not try to understand the differences in terrains in BD and pakistan. Pakistan border land is good for Al-Khalid but not BD border with 46t MBT-2000. Neither it nor its equivalent enemy tanks can move in our terrains. They will be stuck in the thick mud. So, it is no use even if the MBTs have thick armor and shoot 120mm guns.

Don't assume, my points are different. I have discussed BD terrain before. The legacy of Lighter M-24 in PA and use of T-55 by IA has been addressed in past.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Yes they did. Highest Calibre you could fit was a French 105mm canon as shown below in NL service, though 90mm fitments were far more common. Vehicle below weighs 15 tons.

These same French cannons were also fitted to the contemporary 'Curassier', another Austrian light tank. Vehicle below weighs around 15 tons as well.

What most armchair armor experts don't get that these machines (all of which wielded quite a punch for their 13~15 ton weight, including the famed German 'Wiesel'), had their place and time for deployments, and these were where your T-55's and Shermans/Pattons couldn't (or shouldn't) go.

By the way - Lower Medium weight for a tank is considered to be 13-15 tons. Light tanks are in the range of 3-5 tons, such as the Wiesel (see below). These are also sometimes called Tankettes and usually has IFV level guns (below 50mm calibre, usually a 20 or 30mm autocannon).

Wiesel Mk.20 with a 20mm autocannon. Vehicle below weighs around 3 tons. Powered by a VW/Audi 1.9L engine.

Wiesel 2 Air Defence Weapon Carrier. Vehicle below weighs ~5 tons.

Just to clear the confusion, IFV's and Tanks are distinguished by caliber of cannon fitted. Anything that has a 75, 90 or 105mm Cannon fitted cannot be called an IFV. They are by definition tanks, though a bit lighter. Not all IFV's are lightweight, but they can sometimes transform into tanks with addition of guns.

For example, the M1126 Stryker in USMC service is considered a hybrid APC/IFV because of the lack of a large caliber gun.

This was converted to the M1128 Mobile Gun Carrier (and is widely considered a wheeled tank for agile desert warfare, and in main battle tank roles).

Beautifully written, those amx were of an amazing era... cartridge style auto loader which you fire salvos one after another in 3-4 rounds range... sometimes one catridge would have been more than enough to take out a tank

Neither you nor I can confirm what types of threats this Tank will face in battlefield

Sure but these weren’t designed for what you’re thinking of... to me at least that gives us a good idea of what kind of threats it’s meant to engage

 

[Nike]

In modern terms, this is a 'light' tank. What use is a 105mm Gun in an anti-tank role? Modern MBT's can handle that with ease.

This 105 mm gun can launch falarick ATGM, and our army had clearly made such requirement.

Yup, according to Pindad director, Kaplan MT will replace AMX 13. We bought it in 1965 around 600 tanks. It has already been too old.



US also has said they need medium tank and some defense companies have started to make prototype for US need.

General Dynamic light tank

The US Army wants a new light tank powerful enough to shatter the defenses of a formidable adversary — here’s what it might look like

• The US Army has selected two defense firms to build light tank prototypes for the service’s Mobile Protected Firepower program.
• General Dynamics Land Systems Inc. and BAE Systems will each produce 12 prototypes for delivery to the Army, which plans to begin testing them in spring 2020.
• The service expects to field around 500 lightweight tanks – armored vehicles armed with a cannon able to clear hardened defenses for light infantry forced-entry operations, in 2025.

The US Army just moved one step closer to a new light tank intended to boost the firepower of airborne and other light infantry units.

The Army is currently looking for a new tracked armored vehicle able to protect and support infantrymen as they “destroy the enemy in some of the worst places in the world,” Brig. Gen. Ross Coffman, the director of the Army’s Next Generation Combat Vehicle Cross Functional Team, said Monday.

“This capability is much needed in our infantry forces,” he told reporters at a media roundtable.

The infantry has artillery, but “there’s no precision munition to remove bunkers from the battlefield, to shoot into buildings in dense urban terrain,” Coffman explained. That is where Mobile Protected Firepower comes into play.


Two companies, BAE Systems and General Dynamics, have been awarded Section 804 Middle Tier Acquisition Rapid Prototyping contracts for this development project, the Army revealed Monday afternoon. Each contract is worth $376 million, and each company will provide a total of 12 prototypes.

The purpose of Mobile Protected Firepower is to “disrupt, breach, and break through” fortified defenses

The MPF, a 30-ton light tank expected to fill a critical capability gap, is one of five next-generation combat vehicles being developed by Army Futures Command, a new four-star command focused on preparing the force for high-end warfighting against near-peer threats in an age of renewed great power competition.

The Army, shifting its focus from counterinsurgency to high-intensity multi-domain operations with an eye on rivals China and Russia, wants contractors to deliver a vehicle that offers mobility, lethality, and survivability.

The MPF light tanks would provide the firepower to breach heavily-fortified defensive positions, potentially in an area, such as Russian and Chinese anti-access zones, where the US might not be able to achieve absolute air superiority.

The MPF vehicles will help Infantry Combat Brigade Teams (ICBTs) “disrupt, breach, and break through” secure defensive zones, Coffman explained.

The final Mobile Protected Firepower light tank, which will be delivered to troops in 2025, will be a tracked vehicle with either a 105 mm or 120 mm cannon that can withstand an unspecified level of fire. The Army also wants to be able to carry at least two light tanks aboard a C-17 Globemaster III for easy transport.


https://www.businessinsider.sg/here...light-tank-might-look-like-2018-12/?r=US&IR=T

There is two lot of AMX acquisition in Indonesia, first during Mandala program sourced from French directly most armed with 76 mm gun. Second, second hand acquisition from Netherland in 1983, including AMX VTL (APC), those AMX 13 is being armed with 105 mm gun. In early 2000, there is program to upgrade several dozen of them with NIMDA package

----------
Though i am still in middle to promoting K2 black panther to our army for future MBT programme

Beautifully written, those amx were of an amazing era... cartridge style auto loader which you fire salvos one after another in 3-4 rounds range... sometimes one catridge would have been more than enough to take out a tank


Sure but these weren’t designed for what you’re thinking of... to me at least that gives us a good idea of what kind of threats it’s meant to engage

Those AMX 13 is battle proven during six days war and Yom Kippur, in which they surely giving T54 of Syrian army and Egyptian army a nightmare

 

[Nilgiri]

If Kaplan replaces Type-69 G , which im assuming is up gunned to 120 mm, the armament comes down to 105 mm of Kaplan. Seems that mobility is preferred over fire power .

Honestly, its not that big of a deal. You dont lose a tremendous deal with downsize to 105mm, it is still very potent in what it can fire. Check what the standard NATO gun was for most of cold war .

The criticality/sensitivity (regd raw sustained capability) mostly lies in other things of the platform than the caliber (until you drop well below 105mm, to say 20 pounder and WW2 era calibers stuff)....though for lot of doctrine the extra caliber is very welcome on top.

Don't assume, my points are different. I have discussed BD terrain before. The legacy of Lighter M-24 in PA and use of T-55 by IA has been addressed in past.

Often lot of text-wall+brochure copy paste simplistic kind of people go by raw system weight (for black and white simpleton analysis) only.... instead of also looking at ground pressure and what effective torque and torque ramp/response available in system....even going with their "getting stuck in mud" as be all end all issue.

Cursory read of Eastern theatre in WW2 tells a lot on this....heavier tanks were not necessarily the ones getting bogged down the most when the conditions presented itself.

 

[Signalian]

Honestly, its not that big of a deal. You dont lose a tremendous deal with downsize to 105mm, it is still very potent in what it can fire. Check what the standard NATO gun was for most of cold war .

The criticality/sensitivity (regd raw sustained capability) mostly lies in other things of the platform than the caliber (until you drop well below 105mm, to say 20 pounder and WW2 era calibers stuff)....though for lot of doctrine the extra caliber is very welcome on top.



Often lot of text-wall+brochure copy paste simplistic kind of people go by raw system weight (for black and white simpleton analysis) only.... instead of also looking at ground pressure and what effective torque and torque ramp/response available in system....even going with their "getting stuck in mud" as be all end all issue.

Cursory read of Eastern theatre in WW2 tells a lot on this....heavier tanks were not necessarily the ones getting bogged down the most when the conditions presented itself.

Cold war finished like 30 years ago and i will explain why i said that.

120 mm is suitable for taking out any target at good ranges, depends upon smooth bore or rifled though. The transition from 105 mm to 120 mm (or 125 mm) was an up-gradation towards a heavier cannon shifting towards commonality as well as higher velocities. Then the future - supposed to be 140 mm, is not in sight. Considering BD Army, the Type-69 G was upgraded to 120 mm from 100 mm/105 mm ? They could have gone to 105 mm from 100 mm (original Type-69 was 100 mm). Then BD Army inducted MBT 2000 with 125 mm gun. Now they are getting a tank with 105 mm gun.

Now 105 mm, 120 mm and 125 mm calibers with-in an Army which already operates tanks in non-friendly tank country and possesses very small number of tanks - acceptable ? to each his own. Next, L-7 and M-68 were rifled 105 mm guns with extremely good accuracy. Infact when 105 mm tank gun comes to mind, it automatically diverts mind towards NATO tanks with rifled guns. Kaplan Tank has a 105 mm smooth bore gun. So even with different calibres, what does BD Army tanks have in common ? smooth bore tank guns. This is what i mentioned above about cold war era - those tanks carried 105 mm rifled gun which has left a very good impression worldwide.

I have seen videos of M-24 Light tank trials in swamps and marshes - i posted it in some other thread, probably of M-24 Vs PT-76 in Pak Army section. Heavy tanks can bog down in those conditions. Considering WW2, the likes of King Tigers or M-26 Perhsings. Maybe the M-18 or Stug-III could have a better chance in BD terrain. It will be interesting to see how MBT 2000 will fare in such wet areas for cross country runs. So weighing at 46 Tons the MBT-2000 could get stuck and the 30 Ton Kaplan will make it through ? Thats a difference of 16 Tons. and in regards to mobility keeping weight in mind, i again ask, why not a wheeled tank, since BTR are also in service ?

Sure but these weren’t designed for what you’re thinking of... to me at least that gives us a good idea of what kind of threats it’s meant to engage

and what was i thinking of ?

 

[Nilgiri]

Infact when 105 mm tank gun comes to mind, it automatically diverts mind towards NATO tanks with rifled guns. Kaplan Tank has a 105 mm smooth bore gun. So even with different calibres, what does BD Army tanks have in common ? smooth bore tank guns. This is what i mentioned above about cold war era - those tanks carried 105 mm rifled gun which has left a very good impression worldwide.

Yes I will simply have to read up lot more on 105 smoothbores bit later for their realised performance spec. I would think more or less with the advancements these days, they will fare pretty well.

I have seen videos of M-24 Light tank trials in swamps and marshes - i posted it in some other thread, probably of M-24 Vs PT-76 in Pak Army section. Heavy tanks can bog down in those conditions. Considering WW2, the likes of King Tigers or M-26 Perhsings. Maybe the M-18 or Stug-III could have a better chance in BD terrain. It will be interesting to see how MBT 2000 will fare in such wet areas for cross country runs. So weighing at 46 Tons the MBT-2000 could get stuck and the 30 Ton Kaplan will make it through ? Thats a difference of 16 Tons. and in regards to mobility keeping weight in mind, i again ask, why not a wheeled tank, since BTR are also in service ?

Yes its all true. Lot depends on what kinda slush and condition it is. There is special kind of ruck that develops in northern climates during (milder winter) compared to say the bog kinda stuff you find in watery river tropics.

Simply put, the system will have to go through a good test (and doctrine formation, esp regards to training of the driver) in the actual extreme environment you expect it to perform in. I would say no platform should be written off just by weight...but field trialled (or use relevant field trial data + techniques) to get a full (specific, localised) picture.

With heavy tanks especially, contextually lot of time (their bad rep) its simply because there was nothing heavier/torquier than it (around) to pull it out of a mess. Whereas a heavy tank can pull out a light/mid one lot of times. But that is more for strategic somewhat static logistical deployment and can be mitigated, esp these days...though any decent military will look at other issues like their own bridges, railheads and such foremost too.

Dynamically and tactically during time of battle ...tank weight is not that huge an issue as many assume, because you need both raw traction (aided by heavier weight) in some cases and preferably not too narrow tracks...i.e a favourable ground pressure regardless of weight (And also surface area to churn yourself out). This was a huge problem with lot of earlier Panzers during battle in the steppe ruck after rain or melted snow slush, though over time their drivers+commanders did find ways to get around the main problems. Very different to issues faced in the desert sand by same tanks for instance.

It has been long time since I read in detail more of this stuff. I will have to revisit.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Yes I will simply have to read up lot more on 105 smoothbores bit later for their realised performance spec. I would think more or less with the advancements these days, they will fare pretty well.



Yes its all true. Lot depends on what kinda slush and condition it is. There is special kind of ruck that develops in northern climates during (milder winter) compared to say the bog kinda stuff you find in watery river tropics.

Simply put, the system will have to go through a good test (and doctrine formation, esp regards to training of the driver) in the actual extreme environment you expect it to perform in. I would say no platform should be written off just by weight...but field trialled (or use relevant field trial data + techniques) to get a full (specific, localised) picture.

With heavy tanks especially, contextually lot of time (their bad rep) its simply because there was nothing heavier/torquier than it (around) to pull it out of a mess. Whereas a heavy tank can pull out a light/mid one lot of times. But that is more for strategic somewhat static logistical deployment and can be mitigated, esp these days...though any decent military will look at other issues like their own bridges, railheads and such foremost too.

Dynamically and tactically during time of battle ...tank weight is not that huge an issue as many assume, because you need both raw traction (aided by heavier weight) in some cases and preferably not too narrow tracks...i.e a favourable ground pressure regardless of weight (And also surface area to churn yourself out). This was a huge problem with lot of earlier Panzers during battle in the steppe ruck after rain or melted snow slush, though over time their drivers+commanders did find ways to get around the main problems. Very different to issues faced in the desert sand by same tanks for instance.

It has been long time since I read in detail more of this stuff. I will have to revisit.

A sensible post from you without any mudslinging, swearing & mention of 3 million in BD subsection? Will wonders never cease?

 

[Michael Corleone]

Cold war finished like 30 years ago and i will explain why i said that.

120 mm is suitable for taking out any target at good ranges, depends upon smooth bore or rifled though. The transition from 105 mm to 120 mm (or 125 mm) was an up-gradation towards a heavier cannon shifting towards commonality as well as higher velocities. Then the future - supposed to be 140 mm, is not in sight. Considering BD Army, the Type-69 G was upgraded to 120 mm from 100 mm/105 mm ? They could have gone to 105 mm from 100 mm (original Type-69 was 100 mm). Then BD Army inducted MBT 2000 with 125 mm gun. Now they are getting a tank with 105 mm gun.

Now 105 mm, 120 mm and 125 mm calibers with-in an Army which already operates tanks in non-friendly tank country and possesses very small number of tanks - acceptable ? to each his own. Next, L-7 and M-68 were rifled 105 mm guns with extremely good accuracy. Infact when 105 mm tank gun comes to mind, it automatically diverts mind towards NATO tanks with rifled guns. Kaplan Tank has a 105 mm smooth bore gun. So even with different calibres, what does BD Army tanks have in common ? smooth bore tank guns. This is what i mentioned above about cold war era - those tanks carried 105 mm rifled gun which has left a very good impression worldwide.

I have seen videos of M-24 Light tank trials in swamps and marshes - i posted it in some other thread, probably of M-24 Vs PT-76 in Pak Army section. Heavy tanks can bog down in those conditions. Considering WW2, the likes of King Tigers or M-26 Perhsings. Maybe the M-18 or Stug-III could have a better chance in BD terrain. It will be interesting to see how MBT 2000 will fare in such wet areas for cross country runs. So weighing at 46 Tons the MBT-2000 could get stuck and the 30 Ton Kaplan will make it through ? Thats a difference of 16 Tons. and in regards to mobility keeping weight in mind, i again ask, why not a wheeled tank, since BTR are also in service ?


and what was i thinking of ?

Well mobility depends on a lot of factors... HP/T, relative ground pressure exerted by the tracks... there are videos of mbt2000 crossing marshy swamps of bd... not bad really the complaints have mostly been ease of use and maintenance... I guess that depends on I’ll trained crews on a particular platform.

As for guns... I see where you’re getting on with the calibers of the guns but I’ve got a question or two, if different classes of tanks have different calibers... like the mbt having 125
Or the Kaplan having 105...
unless bd decides to design and upgrade/ manufacture it’s own components I don’t see how that can help a third party country... having commonality... it just seems redundant to me.

Oh and type 69 were upgraded with 125mm on their third upgrades.
Tank barrel manufacturing is also being looked into now. Though only 125... and I’m not sure how many locally manufactured 125 barrels were made or used

 

[Nilgiri]

A sensible post from you without any mudslinging, swearing & mention of 3 million in BD subsection? Will wonders never cease?

Harks back to older time period, before the dark acerbic times really entrenched here.

If discussions in BD subforum are kept purely technical and neutral as much as possible, rather than the same old chest thump measuring contest etc (to vent against whichever country...normally India or Pakistan) ...the quality will drift back to older time period.

Lot of excellent BD members have left entirely, a lot from sustained BD on BD bitter drama. I am minor sideshow to all that....just lately ppl think getting at me next is going to somehow solve the underlying problem within themselves. Easier to make example out of someone to a mob, rather than set an example yourself.

If you dig past enough, you will find like layer of onion, I did have good interaction with frequent posting BD members here....just each bridge got burned one by one somewhat inevitably, oh well...I have few regrets. I just realised that BD members here dont represent BD well and in balanced way...and I have my theories as to why and discuss with BD friends in real life. Simply put BD and whole region have long way to go to achieve sustained credibility before comparing too much....politicians and media love people to stay stuck in that for reason.

But that goes for whole forum, not just this one I suppose....just I took somewhat greater interest in BD compared to Pak initially (since I can't really speak my mind openly so much on the latter here, since host-guest thing)....so certain things linger more in former to the latter.

 

[Bilal9]

Boy you asked a whole bunch of questions.

So I am afraid this is going to be a long(ish) answer.

I may not be the best person to answer these - but I'll give some of these a shot.

Folks with real army service experience or equivalent (maybe @Ronin bhai, @Michael Corleone bhai or @bd_4_ever bhai) can try as well and correct me.

You didn't answer my question .
I was hoping to see why you compared Kaplan with Scorpion since they both have different roles to fulfill.

What was compared was the recon and jungle-warfare role (in the Indonesian Army and elsewhere). There was a requirement in the Indonesian Army for a lightweight tankette (though small but sophisticated) for jungle warfare which the Scorpion fulfilled very nicely (there are quite a few in IA inventory). There are few small tanks that were designed in the 1960s to 1970s that were as versatile as the Scorpion and variants thereof, especially so in IA usage (which accounts for the number bought). With time however, the small size and lack of punch for the Scorpion became a factor in recent times. A more potent successor was needed.

I feel the Kaplan keeps the level of agility that a recon and jungle warfare tank like the Scorpion has and adds infantry tank capabilities in a medium weight package with not a whole lot of weight penalty (relatively speaking). It is a better-armored and far more potent platform with a lot more punch (apparently they are saying that gun range is close to 10 KM for some specific rounds). More here,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Medium_Weight_Tank#Armament

The time for light platforms like the Scorpion may be over in the Indonesian and other armies, but medium weight tracked tanks (as well as wheeled tanks, which are a lot lighter) in the 20 to 40 ton weight range (and slightly under) are and will be all the rage right now in the early 2020's in many armies for a host of reasons - among them better lightweight armor, agility and smaller 105mm and even 90mm bore main guns with a lot more accuracy and punch comparable to say heavy 120 mm bore guns of yesteryear.

In Bangladesh main lowland scenario, these medium weight tanks can cross bridges and culverts in some areas that are impossible to cross with say MBT-2000's with their heavy weight, or god forbid something as heavy as an Arjun Tank (which is a lot heavier than the Leopard MBT it is derived from).

As far as I know, the Kaplan's main point that sold it to the Indonesian Army brass was the Cockerill 105mm low-recoil high pressure gun (mounted in the Cockerill modular turret) boasting accuracy, low weight as well as the capability to fire the Falarick ATGM thorugh the gun itself which is rather novel for a 105 caliber gun (brother @Nike mentiioned that this was a requirement for Indonesian Army). Add to that the advanced rounds available from low cost countries like Korea for advanced type NATO rounds. The Koreans are also incorporating this 105mm high pressure gun in their Doosan medium weight tank which is similar to the Kaplan. Indonesia happens to have close ties to Korean defense suppliers, having bought (and having JV's on) many systems over the last couple of decades.

Bangladesh top brass may have chosen this medium weight tank for these same reasons for the Chittagong hill tract terrain, Myanmarese Army being the top contender for a conflict with us. Another possible reason (though far fetched) maybe because medium weight tanks are more appropriate to be air dropped in low-altitude injection scenario via c-130's compared to MBT's. The chance of this scenario is remote but this has been tried successfully and often in the Vietnam war and is a definite advantage with the lower weight.

So here are the armor protection levels for Kaplan (not less than any tank in Bangladesh Army inventory at this time, with maybe the exception of MBT-2000),

• STANAG 4569 Level 4 ballistic protection against 14.5mm armored projectiles and 155mm shell splinters.
• Can withstand the explosion of 10kg TNT under the track and bottom of the hull.
• Add-on armor can be hinged to increase protection to STANAG 4569 Level 5 to sustain damage from 25mm armor piercing discarding sabot-tracer (APFSDS-T) rounds.
• Can be fitted with smoke grenade dischargers, a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) protection system (collective) and a laser warning system for increased survivability against hostile threats (all MBT level features).

[/QUOTE]I have an idea about BD terrain. Unfortunately armored Ops are very restricted in such terrains. Camouflage is natural however it depends what kinds of sensors enemy possesses to identify Kaplan as a target. As for ERA; there are issues of infantry operating closely with Tanks and also what kind of protection ERA can offer on its own. Since Infantry will be operating closely with tanks, the ATGM threat could be neutralized. As for more armor, again ERA is not the only solution for more armored protection. Yes ERA doesn't add much to weight but i didnt have ERA in mind. [/QUOTE]

Well I mentioned the armor advantages above which I have read. I am no expert - so there. I am sure there were other armored OPS advantages that I have not mentioned - brother @Nike might elaborate.

If Kaplan replaces Type-69 G , which im assuming is up gunned to 120 mm, the armament comes down to 105 mm of Kaplan. Seems that mobility is preferred over fire power .

Kaplan is not an MBT and cannot replace Type 69 Mk. II G. Kaplan is a medium-weight tank geared toward a specific goal, to have increased mobility in special situations. As sophisticated and capable as the Kaplan's Main gun is, one cannot compare Kaplan's role to those of Type 69/79 (especially in improved upgraded guise of the latter). Without having some idea of Bangladesh Army current battle doctrine, one cannot lay any opinions on this. I am not privy to those details - yet.

Just to express a personal opinion, if Bangladesh Army decides to get a modern heavy 70 ton MBT in small numbers as a frontline tank (to replace the MBT 2000), they should seriously consider the Otokar Altay MBT. As far as I've read, this tank is no slouch when compared to a Leopard late version or Abrams/Armata platforms. But as I say elsewhere in this thread, this tank (like the MBT 2000) cannot be deployed everywhere in Bangladesh.

Given BA relationship with Otokar and FNSS/Pindad, I see these two tanks (Kaplan and Altay) as natural modern frontline tanks in Bangladesh Army service, the Altay being the successor to the MBT-2000.

Type 69 Mk. II -Gai (G) in Bangladesh service has been very extensively upgraded to latest Chinese standards. It is an older platform but there has been a lot of improvements. And it is still an MBT - which one cannot say about the Kaplan. However all said and done, Kaplan is cost-wise a much more expensive tank and in a different league compared to these older (though much upgraded) Chinese platforms.

How was service of Type-69 G seen in BD Army ? Satisfactory ?

After the improvements with improved sensors, it should be theoretically more satisfactory, I have not spoken to any tank commanders myself for their opinions.

Main features of Type 69 Mk. II G,

• Kontakt-5 ERA which can withstand hits from shaped charges as well as kinetic penetrators
  
• 120 mm smoothbore main gun with Capability to fire Chinese ATGM’s .

In addition they have the following upgraded features (improvements to Bangladesh Army inventory in progress).
• Improved gun stabilizers.
• Modern fire control system.
• Combat data link.
• Improved NBC suite.
• 1,200 hp diesel engine.
• Thermal sights.
• New semi-automatic loading system.
• Laser warning receiver.
• Laser range finder.
• Automated fire fighting equipment.
• Advanced communications equipment.
• Improved navigation equipment + GPS.
• Electronic jamming equipment.

I think rather than buy brand new expensive ATGM fodder, having 'Numbers' tanks like these (Type 59 Durjoy, Type 69-II-G etc.) will provide huge 'Bang-for-the-buck' advantage in a battlefield with relatively little cash outlay. Sometimes numbers spell the difference between winning and losing a tank battle. Kudos to our army brass for taking the decision to improve the Type 59/69/79 tanks in this manner which increased the local technical expertise to have indigenous armor build capability.

There is still a heavier variant of MBT-2000 in service, which areas would that operate in ?

AFAIK NorthWest Bangladesh terrain West of Brahmaputra (Dinajpur, Rangpur, Bogra, Rajshahi divisions etc.) and North of Dhaka (Madhupur/Bhawal Jungle Tract) are elevated areas in Bangladesh not susceptible to flooding, so those are the areas where MBT-2000's heavier platforms will mainly be deployed. I could be wrong though.

Is Kaplan amphibious ?

No - the tank is not amphibious, however there is version called Kaplan-10 which looks like a tracked IFV using the same tracked chassis (like Talha or M113) which is amphibious. You need a different hull with enough buoyancy/water-displacement factor.

A wheeled, amphibious Tank could have been an option too ? Considering BTR APCs are wheeled

I'd say that is an affirmative. Wheeled tanks are definitely no less agile than tracked platforms and these are the new trend. Though not all are certified as amphibious.

Japanese Army Type 16 by Mitsubishi Heavy Ind. (26 tonnes, 105mm gun)

Italian Centauro/Centauro II by IVECO (FIAT) - OTO Melara (26/32 tonnes, 105/120mm gun)

A few wheeled tanks (even lighter than the 8X8 ones above),

the M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System (19 tonnes, 105mm gun derived from the Abrams Tank gun derived from the Rheinmetall L/44, gauged smaller), lower weight attributed to some aluminium in non-critical areas such as wheel hubs, suspension etc..

And the LAV 600 by Textron Systems (~20 tonnes, 105mm gun), smallest platform with a 105mm gun.

And last, but not least, the wheeled cousin of the Kaplan (believe this one is called the Patria) equipped with the Belgium Cockerill CT-CV 105mm high-pressure gun with an advanced autoloader - just like the Kaplan.

Don't assume, my points are different. I have discussed BD terrain before. The legacy of Lighter M-24 in PA and use of T-55 by IA has been addressed in past.

Yes, the battle of Bogra. By 1971 the Chaffees were heavily outdated and outgunned, even compared to T-55's.

"The last time the M24 is known to have been in action was in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, where 66 Pakistani Chaffees stationed in East Pakistan (today's Bangladesh) were lost to Indian Army T-55s, PT-76s, and anti-tank teams, being easy prey for the better-equipped invading Indian forces."

Circa 2017, there was still an M-24 as gate guardian in front of the main entrance of Dhaka Cantonment (of the ten left after 1971 that Bangladesh Army received).

By the way - a parting thought re: 105mm smoothbore vs. 105mm rifled gun. IMHO the only difference is accuracy, the rifled gun having a bigger advantage. Just saying....

 

[Sehnsucht]

Harks back to older time period, before the dark acerbic times really entrenched here.

If discussions in BD subforum are kept purely technical and neutral as much as possible, rather than the same old chest thump measuring contest etc (to vent against whichever country...normally India or Pakistan) ...the quality will drift back to older time period.

Lot of excellent BD members have left entirely, a lot from sustained BD on BD bitter drama. I am minor sideshow to all that....just lately ppl think getting at me next is going to somehow solve the underlying problem within themselves. Easier to make example out of someone to a mob, rather than set an example yourself.

If you dig past enough, you will find like layer of onion, I did have good interaction with frequent posting BD members here....just each bridge got burned one by one somewhat inevitably, oh well...I have few regrets. I just realised that BD members here dont represent BD well and in balanced way...and I have my theories as to why and discuss with BD friends in real life. Simply put BD and whole region have long way to go to achieve sustained credibility before comparing too much....politicians and media love people to stay stuck in that for reason.

But that goes for whole forum, not just this one I suppose....just I took somewhat greater interest in BD compared to Pak initially (since I can't really speak my mind openly so much on the latter here, since host-guest thing)....so certain things linger more in former to the latter.

Constructive criticism, informative & qualitative post from you, or anyone else is always welcome & much appreciated.
As for chest thumping, think members of pretty much every subsection is guilty of this.Especially true for the posters from the subcontinent.After all, we have always been more emotional than logical.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Boy you asked a whole bunch of questions.

So I am afraid this is going to be a long(ish) answer.

I may not be the best person to answer these - but I'll give some of these a shot.

Folks with real army service experience or equivalent (maybe @Ronin bhai, @Michael Corleone bhai or @bd_4_ever bhai) can try as well and correct me.



What was compared was the recon and jungle-warfare role (in the Indonesian Army and elsewhere). There was a requirement in the Indonesian Army for a lightweight tankette (though small but sophisticated) for jungle warfare which the Scorpion fulfilled very nicely (there are quite a few in IA inventory). There are few small tanks that were designed in the 1960s to 1970s that were as versatile as the Scorpion and variants thereof, especially so in IA usage (which accounts for the number bought). With time however, the small size and lack of punch for the Scorpion became a factor in recent times. A more potent successor was needed.

I feel the Kaplan keeps the level of agility that a recon and jungle warfare tank like the Scorpion has and adds infantry tank capabilities in a medium weight package with not a whole lot of weight penalty (relatively speaking). It is a better-armored and far more potent platform with a lot more punch (apparently they are saying that gun range is close to 10 KM for some specific rounds). More here,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Medium_Weight_Tank#Armament

The time for light platforms like the Scorpion may be over in the Indonesian and other armies, but medium weight tracked tanks (as well as wheeled tanks, which are a lot lighter) in the 20 to 40 ton weight range (and slightly under) are and will be all the rage right now in the early 2020's in many armies for a host of reasons - among them better lightweight armor, agility and smaller 105mm and even 90mm bore main guns with a lot more accuracy and punch comparable to say heavy 120 mm bore guns of yesteryear.

In Bangladesh main lowland scenario, these medium weight tanks can cross bridges and culverts in some areas that are impossible to cross with say MBT-2000's with their heavy weight, or god forbid something as heavy as an Arjun Tank (which is a lot heavier than the Leopard MBT it is derived from).

As far as I know, the Kaplan's main point that sold it to the Indonesian Army brass was the Cockerill 105mm low-recoil high pressure gun (mounted in the Cockerill modular turret) boasting accuracy, low weight as well as the capability to fire the Falarick ATGM thorugh the gun itself which is rather novel for a 105 caliber gun (brother @Nike mentiioned that this was a requirement for Indonesian Army). Add to that the advanced rounds available from low cost countries like Korea for advanced type NATO rounds. The Koreans are also incorporating this 105mm high pressure gun in their Doosan medium weight tank which is similar to the Kaplan. Indonesia happens to have close ties to Korean defense suppliers, having bought (and having JV's on) many systems over the last couple of decades.

Bangladesh top brass may have chosen this medium weight tank for these same reasons for the Chittagong hill tract terrain, Myanmarese Army being the top contender for a conflict with us. Another possible reason (though far fetched) maybe because medium weight tanks are more appropriate to be air dropped in low-altitude injection scenario via c-130's compared to MBT's. The chance of this scenario is remote but this has been tried successfully and often in the Vietnam war and is a definite advantage with the lower weight.

So here are the armor protection levels for Kaplan (not less than any tank in Bangladesh Army inventory at this time, with maybe the exception of MBT-2000),

• STANAG 4569 Level 4 ballistic protection against 14.5mm armored projectiles and 155mm shell splinters.
• Can withstand the explosion of 10kg TNT under the track and bottom of the hull.
• Add-on armor can be hinged to increase protection to STANAG 4569 Level 5 to sustain damage from 25mm armor piercing discarding sabot-tracer (APFSDS-T) rounds.
• Can be fitted with smoke grenade dischargers, a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) protection system (collective) and a laser warning system for increased survivability against hostile threats (all MBT level features).

Well written but I have couple of questions

What’s the effective armor thickness of the Kaplan... front, side and back for both hull and turret?

Weren’t the type 69 upgrades with 125mm recently? I read that in Bd military I think

Imo difference between rifled and smoothbore is shell velocity and accuracy like you mentioned. Rifled used to be standard because of its high accuracy until the soviets introduced smoothbores in their Medium tanks... the added benefits were it could fire more types of rounds, HEAT, APFSDS, ATGM etc plus the velocity of the shells can be increased without affecting barrel life. This is why only the British are left with rifled guns