Order put for 100 Turkish-Indonesian medium battle tanks

[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).

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.



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.


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.


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.


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.

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.

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....[/QUOTE]
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 missiles etc. add that with higher velocity without sacrificing barrel life, that difference in accuracy can be forgiven and hence only the British are left with rifled guns

 

[Bilal9]

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?

That is a very good question. For resisting APFSDS kinetic rounds I believe effective thickness needed amounts to 20 plus inches, which means (if they used Rolled Homogenous steel plates that is) the actual thickness could be upwards of 2 inches, closer to 3 inches. But IMHO Kaplan being in the 35 ton weight range probably has lot thinner armor. It is up to ERA and Allah's will.

Of course the angle of the glacis plate and the facet angles of the turret play a part too, less in the flat rear plates. The turret was designed by Cockerill in Belgium, so maybe the design could be a bit more advanced because of better experience - even though armor may be thinner?

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

Some sources say 120mm , some say 125mm.

Better sources say 120mm smoothbore (NATO rounds compatible). In any case FCS and laser designator is what matters in spite of rifling (or not).

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 missiles etc. add that with higher velocity without sacrificing barrel life, that difference in accuracy can be forgiven and hence only the British are left with rifled guns

Agreed on all counts.

 

[Nike]

Kaplan medium tank is born to fulfill Indonesian cavalry requirement for advance light to medium range weight, using 105 mm high presurrized gun, able to navigate rough terrain, have limited footprint to be able to be deployed with minimum logistic support and minimum requirement for fields maintenance along with supporting infantry . The other minimum requirement is to have beyond line of sight engagement capability using secondary type ammunition, along with sufficient indirect firing support.

There is two type of light tank currently operated in Indonesia Army, AMX 13 and scorpion light tank. Both is deemed obsolote with current condition of threat, technical assessment and doctrinal needs. Well there is some scenario TNI AD still using Amx 13/Scorpion as training tools, second lines cavalry units, and infantry firing support. Both tanks is air transportable using C130 A/B/H variants

Now, Kaplan is will be available in near future, they are transportable by air but the minimum requirement is A400M Atlas and C17 globemaster, both will be acquired by Indonesia Air Force in near future. But the transportation of choice available right now is our LCU, LST and LPD fleets.

Indonesian terrain is not only marshy areas, swamp, but a lot of flat and heavily infested urban areas around Northern Java, mountain jungle in Papua, carst hills and mountain in central and western Sumatra there is a lot of variation. Kaplan is not much as assault armor/cavalry vehicles compared to their heavily armed and armored competitor like MBT but they will be our jacks of all trades in many different scenario.

bangladesh army in my opinion can use Kaplan as infantry support vehicles, giving punch against enemies scout and infantry elements, thus this vehicles can be used along with Bangladesh army MBT, or operating among infantry units (in which ERA equipped mbt not suitable to do so.

 

[Arthur]

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

Type 69's were never upgraded with 125. It was proven to be completely incapable of handling the gun.
Only II-G variants use a 120mm smoothbore. type 69-II uses a nato grade 105 mm.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Type 69's were never upgraded with 125. It was proven to be completely incapable of handling the gun.
Only II-G variants use a 120mm smoothbore. type 69-II uses a nato grade 105 mm.

Aha. Thanks for the info.
When i first heard it I was wondering how such a big gun could be in that turret but then I was told stuff and I thought maybe it’s real...

That is a very good question. For resisting APFSDS kinetic rounds I believe effective thickness needed amounts to 20 plus inches, which means (if they used Rolled Homogenous steel plates that is) the actual thickness could be upwards of 2 inches, closer to 3 inches. But IMHO Kaplan being in the 35 ton weight range probably has lot thinner armor. It is up to ERA and Allah's will.

Of course the angle of the glacis plate and the facet angles of the turret play a part too, less in the flat rear plates. The turret was designed by Cockerill in Belgium, so maybe the design could be a bit more advanced because of better experience - even though armor may be thinner?

I have doubts about its uphill capabilities... since the front lower glacis is so huge... and usually thinner... at uphill positions it might provide no protection at all... downhill could be another story though... without much info on the armor thickness one can only speculate