Does Taiwan Need An MBT?

So all the planners of Finnish coastal defence forces are just plain idiots when they disposed old T-54 tank turrets along our coastline?

You see, a gun can fire multitude of ammunition. Offcourse its useless to hire HEAT against ships BUT all modern (and past time) tank guns becomes whit normal shnarbelzs and some (like soviet T-10) was actually devolped from naval guns and could fire standard naval rounds....Thougth its not the case whit L7A1 but it stil can fire 'standard' artillery shells...

please, use your own brains as well, not focus so blindly about single factor of the matter....before making hastly assumptions...and proving your self soooo rigth...you see, its rather dangerous to claim people (members who actual knows stuff) stubid when you clearly havent got any clue att all...

MIGleader said:

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

Click to expand...

Firstly tank round isn’t recoil rifle round or machine gun bullet, secondly there are various types of munitions available and thirdly while tank round cant sink LST it can make substantial damage to ships cargo.
What would happen to infantry or vehicles on board?
What if round hits munitions aboard LST?
What if it hits type 63a tank fully loaded whit gas and ammo?

World isn’t game where better equipment wins the day or chess game where you attack figures whit counterparts; in real world you fire everything you got at any target you see…
Besides all tank needs is to make enough damage to LST to disable it from disembarking troops… Destroyed armored vehicle on board will achieve that without problem…

The tank gun is just a big gun, you can use a variety of ammunition on it. For an example, the US Army's M1028 120mm anti-personnel round is used on the M1A1 tank, and that round contains a canister with 1,150 tunsgten shots. At range of 200-500 meters it can shoot through cars from front to back. That round turns the tank into a giant shotgun.

The question here is what are those ROCA MBT's carrying? We can talk about all kinds of ammo but it's irrevelent unless if they actually deploy them. The ROCA M41D, for an example, it deployed in off-shore islands against PLA amphibious operations, but what kind of ammo fired from its 76mm gun would be effective against LST's?

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…

Click to expand...

LAW is a useless AT round, and it was impossible to hitting a moving target unless u area realy lucky. We were told to use them as mini artillery as our commander said even if u hit a tank with u still wouldn't damage it.

I though PLA use Recoilless Guns rocket luncher or something which is replacing the RPG. These baby have some kinda fire controls or something it orge to make it easier to fire.

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.

Click to expand...

I wanna point out something but I may very well be wrong. How much ROC helicopter, fighter, artillery, bases, tank, infantry would be destory on the initial SRBM attack, cos PLA does have 700 of these pointed at Tawian and IMO it be stupid to not use some of it

I wanna point out something but I may very well be wrong. How much ROC helicopter, fighter, artillery, bases, tank, infantry would be destory on the initial SRBM attack, cos PLA does have 700 of these pointed at Tawian and IMO it be stupid to not use some of it

Click to expand...

The PLA would use the SRBM only on strategic objects such as command post, ports, air defence, radar, airfields and government buildings. SRBM is not use for destroying "individual targets" such as tanks, helicopters. The SRBM would cause dissray in the chain of command and interrupt c4iRS, but not infantry or tanks....(This is not computer game!)

A landing would most likely occur when the ROCN and ROCAF have been completly knocked out. If they're not, the air force and the navy would not let PLA troops land since the first landing would signal the end of Taiwan. Like i said in the previous post, Taiwan is an island, if the island lost its air and sea superiority, the island would simply be blockade and be starved of ammunition and fuel. There are also many other landing sites the PLA could use and there's no way the ROCA can defend them all. Once the PLA marine corp land, the invasion would most likely be conducted by Nanjing MR being reinforced by JInan MR and maybe the South China Fleet. The RoCA would be outnumbered. During WWII, during Japanese invasion, the Japanese failed to land in GeLong, and instead landed on LuGong. That's why i think that while tanks are important to Taiwan's arsenal, acquiring new fighter planes and ships are ROC's many objectives.

The PLA would use the SRBM only on strategic objects such as command post, ports, air defence, radar, airfields and government buildings. SRBM is not use for destroying "individual targets" such as tanks, helicopters. The SRBM would cause dissray in the chain of command and interrupt c4iRS, but not infantry or tanks....(This is not computer game!)

Click to expand...

I know it not a computer game!, dun try to be smart!!!!!!
Everyone know SRBM is not use for destroying individual targets, that why I said Initial SRBM attack and bases(which is also a strategic and tatical objects) which which u have left out. Which can destory or damaged object such as tanks, helicopters, fighter and possible some infantry along the way while they are still in their bases.
It doesn't take a lot of brain to work that out!!!

I would also wonder if the PLA would use SRBM on Navy bases and could SRBM knock them out?
Because if this was possible it would ruin ROC navy because the lack of resupply in the long term.

Ahem, MBTs? And some other people, please know your stuff (if you haven't been there, how'd you know?)

What's the role of the M41Ds again? I kind of doubt its 75mm has a long range and can much before the enemy gets enough damage to crash. It's mobile, which I guess is better for city-works, but its range is just 100 miles. >.> :kicknuts:

I'd suggest that Taiwan replace their M41s instead.... If you really want a foreign tank, one of those independently modified T-72 like PT-91 or Degmen might work. But their 125mm guns will ruin Taiwan's already poor logistics. K1 basic (K1A1 is made only for ROK and uses a 120mm gun) works too.
But really, if Taiwan makes its own M60/48s, why not use them? M60s aren't that bad, especially the upgraded A3s they have.
Logistics are easier, and there's no real need in my eyes.
As for IFVs, just to inform you, Taiwan has their own APCs and IFVs like the CM-32(I think that's the name.)

As for shooting landing crafts, if you call that crazy, then I don't know what to say. If you blow a big hole near the waterline, what will happen? (And I don't think the Strait waters are very forgiving.)

sumdud said:

Ahem, MBTs? And some other people, please know your stuff (if you haven't been there, how'd you know?)

What's the role of the M41Ds again? I kind of doubt its 75mm has a long range and can much before the enemy gets enough damage to crash. It's mobile, which I guess is better for city-works, but its range is just 100 miles. >.> :kicknuts:

I'd suggest that Taiwan replace their M41s instead.... If you really want a foreign tank, one of those independently modified T-72 like PT-91 or Degmen might work. But their 125mm guns will ruin Taiwan's already poor logistics. K1 basic (K1A1 is made only for ROK and uses a 120mm gun) works too.
But really, if Taiwan makes its own M60/48s, why not use them? M60s aren't that bad, especially the upgraded A3s they have.
Logistics are easier, and there's no real need in my eyes.
As for IFVs, just to inform you, Taiwan has their own APCs and IFVs like the CM-32(I think that's the name.)

As for shooting landing crafts, if you call that crazy, then I don't know what to say. If you blow a big hole near the waterline, what will happen? (And I don't think the Strait waters are very forgiving.)

Click to expand...

Well manufacturer would be very happy to find export customer for Degman now that our army is no longer interested (they are more in rapid reaction force armed whit wheeled IFV and they are reducing tank numbers to pretty miserable level) and we are offering quite nice 120mm gun as an option.
But since we have quite good relationships whit PRC I doubt that government would approve sales to Taiwan (but I bet they wouldn’t mind license sales; khm, khm its joust unbeliveble how does sneaky Taiwanese stole our manufacturing plans:roll: ).

As for CM-32 IFV they present quite improvement for Taiwanese rapid reaction force… Looks like pretty modern and capable vehicle, it’s capable to carry quite various weapon configurations and it pretty much fallows Stryker’s capabilities without all that fancy electronics Stryker carry’s…

going slightly off topic here but it seems very obvious that the chinese helicopter force is rather useless in the anti-tank/gunship area. The WZ-9 is a glorified Dauphin with four missiles that has no armour, no gun and almost no advanced electronics. The Wz-10 is an unknown quantity and since it is the first serious attempt at building a decent attack helo will most likelly have serious teething problems. Why does China not aquire large numbers of cheap, available and easily upgradable Mi-24/35's from Russia, or, if its really serious about attack helicopters why does it not become the launch customer for the Ka-50, or even the first export customer for the Mi-28. They would all solve the issue quite well for the Chinese and im sure that there would be much in the way of tech sharing as well so China will be able to modify and add stuff as it sees fit. The only reason i see that it doesnt go down this path is that China really does not place the kind of priority on attack helicopters as the Russians, Americans or Europeans do.

Well, why not. I'll probably end up only embarised for this, but what the hell.

Personaly, I think that the U.S might be hesitant to send over something as High-Tech as an M1A2 seeing as how it could go either way with re-unification. An M1A2 is a nice tank to have in a fight, but the problem is that if it comes to reunification through peace, the Americans would have to pull some real strings to get a shipment of imported M1A2's out before the Chinese get their hands on them and gut them like a prize Tarpon. Any technological advantage the U.S would have with China in terms of heavy armor would be gone, unless one makes the assumption that the M1A2 will be behind the technological curve once reunification hits, and that is a pretty big assumption. There is also the possibility of Taiwanese forces being over-run in some sort of Blitzkreig-style invasion that would leave pristine M1A2's in their garrages before they get feilded. Unlikely, yes, but if there is a possiblity, the U.S might reconsider. This last bit I am probably not a hundred percent accurate on...(I wouldint even shoot for twenty percent, honestly)

If anything, I would sugest that Taiwan, if unable to make their own MBT's, could possibly use an older variety of Soviet-Era tank. I wouldint be able to think of a good supplier, but I am thinking tanks from former Eastern Bloc countries that are modified to a more modern standard, probably base it off of the T-72? One thought that comes to mind is the possiblity of getting T-90's from Russia, but this might make them loose China as a potential customer and possible ally in the future if things come to a shooting war. Another possibility is getting a tank from a willing NATO country.

I dont know much about who has what and who is willing to give what to who. So I am probably not very accurate. Any errors explained would be apreciated.