Does Taiwan Need An MBT?

Gollevainen said:

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...

Click to expand...

I have read books on german arty and d-day. Neither you nor istvan are experts in LSTs or tanks so i am just as knowledgable as you two in this field, and I am far from admitting defeat. Now, i shall begin by ripping istvans argument apart piece by piece...

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?

Click to expand...

Lsts have many ways to protect themselves. Merely putting makeshift armor around some critical areas can greatly increase survivability. type 63a tanks would depart fro the LST a considerable distance from shore, an would swim to the shore as fire support, knocking out m60s on the way. The 63as would also draw fire away from the LST. since LSTs are comming toward the shore, tanks would be limited to firing at the frontal aspect of the ship, and parts of the side if at an angle. The aspect is smaller an harder to hit. Ammunitions can be stored at the center rear, safe from fire. Infantry on the ship are not sitting ducks as you depict. tHey can fire back with things like recoiless rockets.

Miggy, don't give us your lessons unless you work as a PLA engineer or maintence crew!

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…

Click to expand...

yes, throw in everything you got. making large damage to an LST with a tank is more difficult than it seems, especially if there is plenty fo return fire. sandbags on LSTs are even enough to divert most arty fragments. Plus,m they can produce smoke. now lets not forget how useful thos old jianweis and ludas can become when providing support fire...

in WW2, germany had many more shore guns than taiwan, yet fialed to sink many Ally LSTs. And this was in bad weather. what makes you think taiwan can?

MIGleader said:

I have read books on german arty and d-day. Neither you nor istvan are experts in LSTs or tanks so i am just as knowledgable as you two in this field, and I am far from admitting defeat. Now, i shall begin by ripping istvans argument apart piece by piece...

Click to expand...

My friend like you I have also read few books about D-day, Pacific and generally about military history.
Also I have never said that I’m expert in tanks or LST, but I have seen what tank can do at exercises during my service.
As for ripping my arguments piece by piece:

MIGleader said:

Lsts have many ways to protect themselves. Merely putting makeshift armor around some critical areas can greatly increase survivability. type 63a tanks would depart fro the LST a considerable distance from shore, an would swim to the shore as fire support, knocking out m60s on the way. The 63as would also draw fire away from the LST. since LSTs are comming toward the shore, tanks would be limited to firing at the frontal aspect of the ship, and parts of the side if at an angle. The aspect is smaller an harder to hit. Ammunitions can be stored at the center rear, safe from fire. Infantry on the ship are not sitting ducks as you depict. tHey can fire back with things like recoiless rockets.

Click to expand...

Any kind of armor will provide extra protection to LST but it would increase weight and sandbags aren’t that great because they would reduce space for troops; plus you have to be weary careful how you position all that extra weight around ship or else you will destroy stability of ship.
One more thing all that extra armor would not provide to much extra protection against tank rounds (but I see some point because it will give protection against smaller caliber fire).

Type 63a would not be able to shoot main gun until it comes to the shore and it will be quite woundable to infantry ATGM or tank fire (armored vehicles are slow as hell in the water). Besides type63 would have quite few problems whit bad weather.
Since Taiwan has quite egnouf of MBT I dont see problem whit shooting at LST and typ63...
As for shooting at frontal side of LST you naturally know that tanks have no problems whit hitting other tanks (actually tanks are smaller, faster targets, and if I’m not mistaken tanks have angled armor also)?

Ammunitions can be stored at middle but what would LST also carry? Armored vehicles, infantry, fuel maybe? Hitting armored vehicle in front would quite slow down troop and armor dismount from LST or am I maybe wrong? Slower you are more woundable you are...
As for infantry; ship heading at high speeds to shore is not most stabile shooting platform especially while someone shoots at you.

MIGleader said:

yes, throw in everything you got. making large damage to an LST with a tank is more difficult than it seems, especially if there is plenty fo return fire. sandbags on LSTs are even enough to divert most arty fragments. Plus,m they can produce smoke. now lets not forget how useful thos old jianweis and ludas can become when providing support fire...

in WW2, germany had many more shore guns than taiwan, yet fialed to sink many Ally LSTs. And this was in bad weather. what makes you think taiwan can?

Click to expand...

Like I said; throw in everything you got… Tanks would be only one part of defense force, they can make quite allot damage to LST cargo and even some damage too LST.
-As for return fire only guns on LST have stabilized guns that would allow them some accuracy but LST are not too heavily armed are they?
-As for smoke did you ever hear about thermal imagers? Quite allot of countries has them installed on armored vehicles…
-As for Ludas and Jingweis wouldn’t they be in the range of coastal artillery and truck based SSM…

Also I have seen Croatian navy exercise video where 57mm gun from FAC sinked decommissioned FAC whit few shots, also Croatian army sink few smaler ships and made considerable damage to other Yugoslav navy ships at beginning of war. Since we didn’t have better weapons we used old German 88mm flak from museums and captured Yu army reserve stocks. May I be mistaken when I think that 105mm tank gun carry little more punch then old WWII flack canon. Taiwan uses 127mm and 155mm guns as costal artillery.

As for Normandy experience:
-Allies had surprise element on there side, China would not have that…
-Like you said yourself this was in bad weather. If I’m not mistaken today we have things like radars and fire control systems that are quite useful if you want to hit something, Germans didn’t.
- Also since you have read books about Normandy you know that Germans didn’t expect Normandy landing but Calais landing… And one of reasons D-day succeeded was German lack of tanks in that area…

Any kind of armor will provide extra protection to LST but it would increase weight and sandbags aren’t that great because they would reduce space for troops; plus you have to be weary careful how you position all that extra weight around ship or else you will destroy stability of ship.
One more thing all that extra armor would not provide to much extra protection against tank rounds (but I see some point because it will give protection against smaller caliber fire).

Click to expand...

China;s LSTs ans cargo liners are widebodied for greater stability. A few sandbags wont ruin it. sandbags will not protect against a direct hit but will protect against shell fragements.

Type 63a would not be able to shoot main gun until it comes to the shore and it will be quite woundable to infantry ATGM or tank fire (armored vehicles are slow as hell in the water). Besides type63 would have quite few problems whit bad weather.
Since Taiwan has quite egnouf of MBT I dont see problem whit shooting at LST and typ63...
As for shooting at frontal side of LST you naturally know that tanks have no problems whit hitting other tanks (actually tanks are smaller, faster targets, and if I’m not mistaken tanks have angled armor also)?

Click to expand...

The 63a actually can fire while swimming since it has reduced recoil gun. it can also swim in bad weather thanks to it;s four floating tanks. shooting a 63a in water is VERY hard because on the top of the hull and the small turret are exposed. Remember, this is a small tank. also, the frontal aspect of the LST is likely to be the side that is amored. I do not doubt that a round that pierces will cause some damage, but it will be minor.

Ammunitions can be stored at middle but what would LST also carry? Armored vehicles, infantry, fuel maybe? Hitting armored vehicle in front would quite slow down troop and armor dismount from LST or am I maybe wrong? Slower you are more woundable you are...
As for infantry; ship heading at high speeds to shore is not most stabile shooting platform especially while someone shoots at you.

Click to expand...

I highly doubt fuel would be carried as part of the first wave of attack. after all, a beach is a pretty small distance to trek. Once the beach is secured, then supply ships with fuel will come. Im not 100% sure of how contents are arranged, but you can rest assured that armoured vehicles will have seperate garages below deck. Abovedeck space will be for troops and supplies. once again, we must determine which vehcles will come with the first wave. Probably 63As and a number of 92s, maybe 122mmSPA guns. These vehicles have some armor, and a tank round which has already lsot energy piercing ship armor wont cause too much damage. LSTs do not have to go fast, but can perform evasive manuvers while closing in on the beach to make it harder for the enemy to fire. Training troops to fire on the move is not so hard

Like I said; throw in everything you got… Tanks would be only one part of defense force, they can make quite allot damage to LST cargo and even some damage too LST.
-As for return fire only guns on LST have stabilized guns that would allow them some accuracy but LST are not too heavily armed are they?
-As for smoke did you ever hear about thermal imagers? Quite allot of countries has them installed on armored vehicles…
-As for Ludas and Jingweis wouldn’t they be in the range of coastal artillery and truck based SSM…

Click to expand...

Their are special or modified ships in the PLAN whose specific job is to fire rockets and guns to shore to soften defences. The LSTs are not alone. At daytime, a thermal imager would have to much pollution from the sun to be used effectively. Even the US mairnes consider smoke effective. Yes, the warships are exposed but they are armored. its a matter of who hits who first

Also I have seen Croatian navy exercise video where 57mm gun from FAC sinked decommissioned FAC whit few shots, also Croatian army sink few smaler ships and made considerable damage to other Yugoslav navy ships at beginning of war. Since we didn’t have better weapons we used old German 88mm flak from museums and captured Yu army reserve stocks. May I be mistaken when I think that 105mm tank gun carry little more punch then old WWII flack canon. Taiwan uses 127mm and 155mm guns as costal artillery.

As for Normandy experience:
-Allies had surprise element on there side, China would not have that…
-Like you said yourself this was in bad weather. If I’m not mistaken today we have things like radars and fire control systems that are quite useful if you want to hit something, Germans didn’t.
- Also since you have read books about Normandy you know that Germans didn’t expect Normandy landing but Calais landing… And one of reasons D-day succeeded was German lack of tanks in that area…

Click to expand...

lets not get into this, i shoudlnt have brought it up. Hundred of factors are different from this and WW2, so comparision would be fruitless.

I think that we can all agree on this: Tanks have certain abilites that would make them useful for fending off a landing, but fortifications, artillery and SSM missles can fufill that role for Taiwan much better than tanks along the beach ever could. Although Taiwan does use some of its more antiquated tanks as mobile bunkers, doing what Isthvan described. Anyway, tanks are much more useful when used as they are intended, leading attacks with manuver and firepower. That is how Taiwan muct use them, because early on they will have numerical superiority and superior quality in tanks (upgraded M60 against Type 63), as well as numerical superiority in troops. They must make full use of this and wipe out a landing as soon as it has seucred a foothold.

Is it an option for Taiwan to make its own MBT? They just produced an indigenous APC. It is sort of like the Stryker but without a lot of electronics. There are plans to mount a 105mm gun on some and turn them into tanks destroyers.

MIGleader said:

China;s LSTs ans cargo liners are widebodied for greater stability. A few sandbags wont ruin it. sandbags will not protect against a direct hit but will protect against shell fragements.

Click to expand...

I meant that additional armor on the hull could shift stability not sandbags. My comment about sandbags is that they would reduce space… Majority of Chinese LST platform is not to big and any reduction in cargo capabilities would be quite unwelcome…

MIGleader said:

The 63a actually can fire while swimming since it has reduced recoil gun. it can also swim in bad weather thanks to it;s four floating tanks. shooting a 63a in water is VERY hard because on the top of the hull and the small turret are exposed. Remember, this is a small tank. also, the frontal aspect of the LST is likely to be the side that is amored. I do not doubt that a round that pierces will cause some damage, but it will be minor.

Click to expand...

Sorry I looked at type63 not 63a. Now while it has better swimming abilities at bad weather and apparently can shoot while swimming (but I would still like to se picture of type63a shooting while swimming before believing that) question is can he shoot at bad weather. I mean what visibility you have from swimming tank if waves are higher then 0.5 – 1 m. Not to mention problems whit accuracy in such conditions… If you ever were in small bout at sea you know what I’m trying to say…
As for shooting at swimming type 63a MBTs have quite good accuracy… I would believe that tank would have greater possibility to hit type63a before swimming type63a hits tank because I believe that situation awareness would be greater on stabile, ground based platform then on small armored vehicle being tossed around by waves…
Also how thick would armor on LST be? Because I have seen Iraq video of tank round hitting old BTR-60APC and exiting on other side and then doing considerable damage to house behind it…

MIGleader said:

LSTs do not have to go fast, but can perform evasive manuvers while closing in on the beach to make it harder for the enemy to fire. Training troops to fire on the move is not so hard

Click to expand...

Slower target is easier target; it is not like LSTs are too fast at the beginning. Only chance they got is to get to the shore as fast as they can…
Shooting on the move is not hard; hard part is hitting something. Tray to imagine how difficult is to hit something while you are on platform that is constantly rocking i.e. from ship…

MIGleader said:

Their are special or modified ships in the PLAN whose specific job is to fire rockets and guns to shore to soften defences. The LSTs are not alone. At daytime, a thermal imager would have to much pollution from the sun to be used effectively. Even the US mairnes consider smoke effective. Yes, the warships are exposed but they are armored. its a matter of who hits who first

Click to expand...

I agree that all comes down to who hits who first. I agree that thermal imager would have problems whit sun, but I don’t agree that amphibious assault could happen only at 12 noon, whit perfect sonny weather and calm sea… My money is at early dawn/sunrise when thermal imagers still work…

I agree about WW2, heck we should not have this discussion either. Whit my country example I was only trying to show you that if old German 88mm can make considerable damage to Koni class frigate then tank 105mm can do some damage to LST. Especially since majority of Chinese LST ships are smaller then 100m(more like 45-90m) and since most modern ships aren’t armed in WW2 stile, but rather have armored only few crucial departments(like engine etc.). Some don’t have even that…

I’m nor Golly didn’t said that MBT should be primary weapon for attacks on LST but if they got chance to make some damage to it then they should shoot at it… In cooperation whit other coastal defenses they could make enough damage to prevent troop landing… Not to mention what lucky shoot in command bridge could do.
I agree whit Finn that MBT main objective is to wipe out a landing before they can seucre a foothold.

Glad to see we are agreeing on somethings...but the knots remain.

I meant that additional armor on the hull could shift stability not sandbags. My comment about sandbags is that they would reduce space… Majority of Chinese LST platform is not to big and any reduction in cargo capabilities would be quite unwelcome…

Click to expand...

Er...What i meant was to put netting on the side of the LST and strap the sandbags to the outside, not inside. Welding on additional metal is also an option.

Sorry I looked at type63 not 63a. Now while it has better swimming abilities at bad weather and apparently can shoot while swimming (but I would still like to se picture of type63a shooting while swimming before believing that) question is can he shoot at bad weather. I mean what visibility you have from swimming tank if waves are higher then 0.5 – 1 m. Not to mention problems whit accuracy in such conditions… If you ever were in small bout at sea you know what I’m trying to say…
As for shooting at swimming type 63a MBTs have quite good accuracy… I would believe that tank would have greater possibility to hit type63a before swimming type63a hits tank because I believe that situation awareness would be greater on stabile, ground based platform then on small armored vehicle being tossed around by waves…
Also how thick would armor on LST be? Because I have seen Iraq video of tank round hitting old BTR-60APC and exiting on other side and then doing considerable damage to house behind it…

Click to expand...

since dongfeng put it on a page, i beleive it. Dongfeng does nto add anything unless its verified fact. Ive tried numerous times to convince him to make additions, but he never thinks I have enough proof.

The 105mm gun on the type 63a is fully stabilised, and so is the fire control. I would assume crews are trained to fire in water. So both sides will have an equally tough time hitting eachother. One good thing about the 63a though is that they can draw fire away from LSTs.

Slower target is easier target; it is not like LSTs are too fast at the beginning. Only chance they got is to get to the shore as fast as they can…
Shooting on the move is not hard; hard part is hitting something. Tray to imagine how difficult is to hit something while you are on platform that is constantly rocking i.e. from ship…

Click to expand...

I would expect the seas to be relavtively calm during an invasion. With the hj-9, all the gunner has to do is keep the cross hairs on the target, not a tough task to do.

I agree that all comes down to who hits who first. I agree that thermal imager would have problems whit sun, but I don’t agree that amphibious assault could happen only at 12 noon, whit perfect sonny weather and calm sea… My money is at early dawn/sunrise when thermal imagers still work…

Click to expand...

in combat, all the fire/return fire, destroyed equipment, and resulting fires and smoke will severly impact the effectiveness of thermal imagers. Lets not forget decoys

MIGleader said:

Er...What i meant was to put netting on the side of the LST and strap the sandbags to the outside, not inside. Welding on additional metal is also an option.

Click to expand...

But if sandbags are outside there will still be shrapnel’s flying inside LST. I don’t think that sandbag or armor on LST can stop tank round. So we are again running in circles…

MIGleader said:

since dongfeng put it on a page, i beleive it. Dongfeng does nto add anything unless its verified fact. Ive tried numerous times to convince him to make additions, but he never thinks I have enough proof.

The 105mm gun on the type 63a is fully stabilised, and so is the fire control. I would assume crews are trained to fire in water. So both sides will have an equally tough time hitting eachother. One good thing about the 63a though is that they can draw fire away from LSTs.

Click to expand...

It is not that I don’t believe Dongfeng. I find him as one of rare reliable sources about Chinese equipment. But I joust think that if type63a can shoot while swimming sea conditions must be perfect.

Still I think that tank on the shore will always have big advantage compared to swimming vehicle. They will have easier task to spot type 63 because higher ground. Also type63 probably have some limitations for shooting wile swimming (max. evaluation of gun for example). Dongfeng comments would be quite welcome at this point…

MIGleader said:

I would expect the seas to be relavtively calm during an invasion. With the hj-9, all the gunner has to do is keep the cross hairs on the target, not a tough task to do.

Click to expand...

Even at relatively calm sea ship at high speed isn’t stable platform. And if you can shoot at someone then someone is most probably shooting at you… Keeping cross at target in such conditions is quite harder then it seems…

MIGleader said:

in combat, all the fire/return fire, destroyed equipment, and resulting fires and smoke will severly impact the effectiveness of thermal imagers. Lets not forget decoys

Click to expand...

True but thermal imagers aren’t night vision goggles. Blinding them is much harder. But like you said effectiveness would suffer in such conditions. On both sides…

Well, I think our debate has lost most of the heat and the arguments have slowly but surely dwindled to the point of a fine needle, where military facts are replaced by a lack of information. If a source of more, new information becomes available, we can continue.

The original point for me was to prove that my post contained genuine material and was not crap like Golly made it out to be...

Well i didnt directly said that your article (which was actually rather nice) was full of crab...only that it completely ignored major factor that would have twisted the claim that tanks have no use against ships around.
I have messed up whit guns of various calibers so much that I know what fully charged HE round can do in its target, and I severly doupt that modern "ligth" shipbuiding can whitstand lot of those actions....

Neither you nor istvan are experts in LSTs or tanks so i am just as knowledgable as you two in this field, and I am far from admitting defeat

Click to expand...

after you have witness gun firing by your own eyes, feel it whit your flesh and bones, I suggest that You wont crusade against me in any thing involving 20mm+ tubes....





Tanks actually makes a nice cosatal defence platform as they can in other hand whitstand many of the shells that PLANs landing ships can counter them...and most importantly, they are mobile and can be out of sigth when PLAAFs airsupport arrives.

I wonder what level of sea roughness these Amphib tanks can operate in?

I ask as I would guess that; provided the tank is not swamped or overturned, that lateral wave movement might offer the vehicle its best possible protection in the event of an opposed landing.