Does Taiwan Need An MBT?

Hsiung-Feng said:

adeptitus, RoC have already assemble their own tank based on the M60 chasis. In fact, the CM11 and CM12 were the combination of such a vehicle. The chasis is based on the M60, while the turret is from the M48 with improved ballistic co mputer and fire control similar to the M60. Indeed, Israel tanks were able to manuver through Gaza, but this is Taiwan. Since you said they have been living in Taiwan, you would know that there are cars parking on the side of the street almost all the time. Sometimes, in smaller street, there are barely any room for even sedan to go through. WE're not talking about single tank, but a full Tank bridgades with his support units, alone with infantry, i think you really are left with small space. Also, if it come down to urban warefore, there are many tall buildings in Taiwan that are excellent spot for anti tank missiles to be fired from. I personally think the M60A3 is an excellent tank and is capable of defeating the amphibious forces. The PLA is less likely going to use Type 99 or 96 for beach landing. But, when the RoCA fail to stop the Chinese invasion, Taiwan is pretty much over, even if Taiwan have M1, they would be completed surrounded by PLA navy without supply and M1 would be fighting on empty gas tank.

Click to expand...

Yes there are many small allys in old neighborhoods, but then there are plenty of newer & wider streets too. I'd also point out that the M48, M60, and M1A1 all have physical width of ~3.6 meters (~12 ft). So any street that the M48 can go through, the M1A1 can prolly go through too unless if you have to make a 90-degree turn in a tight corner.

If we look at Israeli ventures into the Gaza strip, the IDF sends about 30 armored vehicles and the MBT's roll right over parked cars in the street. RPG's can easily destroy M113's but not MBT's. The Palestinians were only able to destroy several Israeli tanks via remote-controlled mines/bombs.

I think we need to look at what roles the ROCA MBT's will serve. If they're intended as mobile gun platforms to shoot at incoming PLAN LST's or PLA assets on the beach, then the city arguement becomes irrevelent because the MBT's would be deployed to the beach, hopefully backed up by truck-mounted AShM's and mobile SAM units.

1. A tank force may find itself pinned down and/or decimated by PLAAF aircraft before being able to get to the beachheads to suppress the landing troops.
2. Most PLA infantry squads have 1-2 RPG's in place of SAW (Not to say that these squads don't have SAW). It is quite possible that on the beachheads, when a M-60 can fire on the defending troops, so can the attacking PLA troops fire at the M-60 with RPG's.
3. In the first few hours of battle, any cobras sent to the beachheads to give support to the ground forces will probably be shot down by missile fire from the ships, or A2A missiles from PLAAF aircrafts.

1. A tank force may find itself pinned down and/or decimated by PLAAF aircraft before being able to get to the beachheads to suppress the landing troops.
2. Most PLA infantry squads have 1-2 RPG's in place of SAW (Not to say that these squads don't have SAW). It is quite possible that on the beachheads, when a M-60 can fire on the defending troops, so can the attacking PLA troops fire at the M-60 with RPG's.
3. In the first few hours of battle, any cobras sent to the beachheads to give support to the ground forces will probably be shot down by missile fire from the ships, or A2A missiles from PLAAF aircrafts.

Click to expand...

First of all, the tank would not be "right" on the beach head, it would most likely stay in ambush or inland. Protected by avenger AAM. If the RoCAF and RoCN did its job, which is to secure the air and sea, the PLAAF would not "decimate or pinned" down the armour forces. (don't get me wrong, PLA is a capable army)

Remember that tank is not the only thing that's defending the beachhead, there's probably Artillery, mortor, MLRS, M109A6 and infantry units protecting the beachhead. The tank is mainly use to engage landing crafts and armour units.

The US is probably not going to sell M1A1 abrahams to Taiwan...
In 2001, When the Ministry of Defence send the request of arms to U.S, President Bush turned down the option of selling M1 equiped with 105mm gun, and other high tech weapons. I am not denying the role of MBT in modern warefore, i am saying the effectiveness of MBT in urban warfare is less effective. Tanks and IFV were not as effective in Iraq, during the Battle of Fallujah, most M1 stay out of the streets and were used only when called in to decimate a certain buildings. Marine infantry did most of the house to house combat.

Tanks and IFV were not as effective in Iraq

Click to expand...

oops. I mean, not as effective in urban fighting. They play a big role in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Obcession said:

1. A tank force may find itself pinned down and/or decimated by PLAAF aircraft before being able to get to the beachheads to suppress the landing troops.
2. Most PLA infantry squads have 1-2 RPG's in place of SAW (Not to say that these squads don't have SAW). It is quite possible that on the beachheads, when a M-60 can fire on the defending troops, so can the attacking PLA troops fire at the M-60 with RPG's.
3. In the first few hours of battle, any cobras sent to the beachheads to give support to the ground forces will probably be shot down by missile fire from the ships, or A2A missiles from PLAAF aircrafts.

Click to expand...

Well if you're not going to attack the beachead, despite possible losses, what does the ROCA even exsist for? That is the best chance Taiwan has for survival once the PLA has landed, and as Hsiung Feng said, the tanks would be supported by the best the ROCA has to offer, and as many troops as they could throw into the offensive, because if they failed the one remaining chance for victory would be lost. And if the attack is well orchestrated, the Navy and Air Force would participate as well, with ships firing as many missles as possible at the ships protecting the beachead and giving it SAM cover. The Air Force would hit targets on the ground as well as engage PLAAF fighters that were attacking helicopters and any ground-support missions the PLAAF would fly, probably with Q-5s and WZ-10s. Essentially, all of Taiwan's military would have to thrown into the attack, because it would be risky and if it failed there would be no hope for victory. That is why at least upgraded M-60s are necessary, because it would be this counterattack that would be Taiwan's last hope for victory after a PLA landing. Again I draw a comparison to Normandy-Von Runstedt, and to a lesser extent Rommel understood the necessity of a fast and powerful armoured attack on the landed allied forces before they could reinforce enough to withstand it. Hitler's control of the panzer divisions prevented this attack from coming before it was far too late, and even then it was fragmented and achived little. The lesson is that the attack has to come fast and that tanks are needed.

well considering that all marine forces seem to lack the ablity to transport heavy armored units (those nifty hovercraft seem to be retied, or i haven't heard about them in a while) this should naturally give the advantage to the defenders.

while the hj-9 gives a penetration of 1200mm RHA + ERA, i do remember the abrams tank to have a heat equvalent of slightly over 1000mm, so any claims of defence or penetration will need to be tested and verified first, otherwise its too close to call on stats alone.

however if the taiwan does get its hands on an arena like system (the US and Isreal are supposely close to completing one) then any invading force is going to have significantlly more problems unless they get a lot of mach 2+ progetiles (tank rounds or some kind of expensive missile)

as for using the cobra, i am against it since the cobra is fairly unarmored and helicoptors are already high value high profile targets, relaying on them as an intergal part of anti tank defence seem like a bad plan to me.

taiwan could get the abrams now problaby (i think autria is buying some) though they should just get the tank without the tusk upgrade, (3mil for the tank another 6 mil for tusk)

though taiwan could develop its own indeginous tank, a bunch of other countries have done so with good results, like sweden, japan, britain, isreal, india, etc

he WZ-9 can kill tanks, the WZ-10 is going to be out soon and is just as good as your Apache helicopter. The Fantan though not as good as a A-10 stil is a good anti-tank platform. I Think China has several tank killing air platforms.

Click to expand...

The WZ-10 can kill tank, yes. But it but it not going to be as good as the Apache helicopter. After it China first dedicated attack helicopter it not going to be as good as the most advance attack helicopter in the world.
Anyway it will give the PLA some very good capability: close air support, anti tank, escort, light strike just to name a few.

From an article i read on China defence, it seems taiwan is actually tryng to use it's m60s to fire on invading PLAN ships. How stupid!!!

Click to expand...

PLAn Ships maybe it stupid but PLAN landing craft it not a bad idea.

There are some rather childish remarks being posted in this thread, once again...But I feel it's our duty to correct them, not venturing blindly on the road of making comments that may couse someone's persona a stain of imatureness....

so no names...

1. A tank force may find itself pinned down and/or decimated by PLAAF aircraft before being able to get to the beachheads to suppress the landing troops.
2. Most PLA infantry squads have 1-2 RPG's in place of SAW (Not to say that these squads don't have SAW). It is quite possible that on the beachheads, when a M-60 can fire on the defending troops, so can the attacking PLA troops fire at the M-60 with RPG's.
3. In the first few hours of battle, any cobras sent to the beachheads to give support to the ground forces will probably be shot down by missile fire from the ships, or A2A missiles from PLAAF aircrafts.

Click to expand...

Some counter questions....
1. What are the exact planes suitable for special anti-tank role in PLAAF's inventory? Jh-7? Su-30MKK? or the old warhorse Q-5? And again what is the status of ASMs fielded by PLAAF that are suitable for antitank role and how well does those planes mentioned incorporates them?

2. What are the rules of engagements with all portable AT weapons like RPGs and disposaple ATGLs? Is the person asking this ever had any sort of training with these weapons? Also lets recap little about using tanks in defencive operations. Where and how would they be deployed?

3. What is the differences of computer games and reality? exspecially in combat enviroments?

few more...

he WZ-9 can kill tanks, the WZ-10 is going to be out soon and is just as good as your Apache helicopter. The Fantan though not as good as a A-10 stil is a good anti-tank platform. I Think China has several tank killing air platforms.

Click to expand...

How does WZ-9 or WZ-10 gets to the battlefield? Flying from the mainland? Remember, PLAN fileds no landingship that could support them. It's true that some of them have helipad, but non PLANs landingship fields a hangar...
Also, i must remind that everytime when talking about helicopter or low flying aircraft operations, you must remember that effective low-level airdefence network can have devastating effects.

And back to the Q-5 and the number 1 counterquestion...what exactly makes you think that Q-5 is a good anti-tank platform?

And last but certainly not least...

From an article i read on China defence, it seems taiwan is actually tryng to use it's m60s to fire on invading PLAN ships. How stupid!!!

Click to expand...

Why? Becouse PLAN ships have the magical invisble shield system? Why exactly using tankguns in coastal defence a stubid idea?

Quite agreed Golly...

First of all you have to realize that whit current PLAN amphibious assets and possible landing spots (which are all heavily mined and fortified) PRC forces would be concentrated in really small area.
PRC troops concentrated at that small area would be heavily bombarded by ROC artillery, attacked by ROC attack helicopters (and if you know anything about attack helicopter tactics you would understand that they not such easy targets as you may think), tanks and infantry.

Now RPG and portable ATGM is great but you have to come in range of tanks at try to score hit and all that under heavy infantry, artillery and tank fire… I have used LAW at exercises and I can tell you that even in simulated combat environment hitting moving target is pretty hard… Now doing that in real combat environment is hard as hell…

As for PRC anti-tank support Q-5 is really bad choice… It lacks weapons for that mission and whit unguided missiles his attack pattern is in MANPAD range… As I said earlier Q-5 has more in common whit Vietnam era F-100 then whit any modern fighter…

As for PRC helicopter support PLAN has no ships that can support attack helicopter sorties so they are really not an option…

And finally since PLAN uses LST amphibious ships they are quite woundable to ROC tank, artillery and even infantry light 60mm mortar fire… Hell if you defend beachhead you would shoot at landing ships whit every thing you got…

Why? Becouse PLAN ships have the magical invisble shield system? Why exactly using tankguns in coastal defence a stubid idea?

Click to expand...

And finally since PLAN uses LST amphibious ships they are quite woundable to ROC tank, artillery and even infantry light 60mm mortar fire… Hell if you defend beachhead you would shoot at landing ships whit every thing you got…

Click to expand...

Are you guys that stupid? tank fire would do absolutely NOTHING to wound an LST except for make small hole. What a waste of ammunition. The high-velocity kinetic energy rounds of tank guns would likely have little effect on a cargo ship

i shall take this quote from a china-defense article that shall prove that Im am right

There are many historical examples of ships under fire from shore based weapons. During the US-Vietnam Conflict, riverine operations routinely put ocean-going ships under fire from anti-tank weapons. In one well-documented case a US Landing Ship, Tank (LST) came under intense machine-gun and recoilless rifle fire. Nine hits from recoilless rifles were suffered in rapid sucession, but the damage suffered to the ship was not extreme

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and perhaps if you two read the rest of my article, it will show you just how right i am!!!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...