Probably former British Colonial officers that never went back to the UK & continue to serve in ATM.

Not unheard of in other Commonwealth countries.

Is no one in Malaysia seriously thinking of manufacturing some slat/cage armor for ATM armored vehicles? It couldn't be that hard,I don't think there's any high-tech processes involved.

A little apprehensive seeing Malbatt's Condors & Land rovers in Lebanon being so bare,no extra armor.

Aku suka tol Malaysia senyap2 je buat latihan perang dengan banyak armed forces negara luar,ramai orang tak tau.Dah selesai baru keluar berita.
Ada sestengah negara tu (ehem ehem) kalau ada war exercise sebulan sebelum mula dah kecoh. Kerjasama unggul la,our closest allies la, sahabat dulu,kini dan selama la (oops!).....

Any internal combustion engined vehicle can also generate smoke by injecting fuel into the exhaust system.Those small airplanes that write sky messages do it all the time. Hell,you can do to your car if you want.

Anyway,no need for tanks or the crew to dig proper trenches,just pile up an earth embankment in front of the tank can also put the tank in a hull-down position and offer good defense from attack,also a trench can be hard to reverse for a tank,an earth embankment can protect the front of the tank and if in trouble,the tank can reverse easily to another position.

But I think you all got the tactics backwards,Soviet doctrine is for full armored attack with speed and maneuverability,that's why Soviet-designed tanks are smaller,lighter and ride lower,to make a small target for enemy defences. Meanwhile NATO doctrine dictates tanks must fight defensively, that's why NATO tanks are bigger and more armored for more survivability and taller so it's easier to deploy in hull-down fighting position. So NATO tanks should be the ones fighting from defensive position and Soviet tanks are the ones charging an enemy in overwhelming numbers.


M2 Bradley hull-down position behind an earthen embankment


Difference in size between M1 Abrams (Blue) and T-90 (Red)

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Sep 26 2013, 01:51 AM

That's the whole point of my answer,Soviet-designed tanks are not designed for defensive fighting because the Soviet combat doctrine is for attack. Sure,they can be used to fight defensively if the situation warrants it,but they are rather poorly designed to fight from hull-down defensive positions (they ride lower,lower silhouette & have less gun depression).

hmm not sure about this....

I don't think the Soviets never had the doctrine of large-scale tactical nuclear deployment.Nearly all their nuclear assets are for long range attacks,not battlefield nuking. They rely more on a massive offensive by conventional forces. Also isn't it no-brainer that you don't nuke the place you're trying to conquer.

In my knowledge only NATO subscribed to that strategy.NATO forces would only need to defend from any forces that made it through after tactical nukes blow away any large Soviet forces coming in,all the nukes that it would take to stop the massive soviet forces with NATO's more limited numbers. If in the process Germany became a nuclear wasteland,that's too bad la

Wow,many trolls here today!

If it's part of their duty,why not?
USMC can also open door for VVIPs.




In my opinion a suitable structure for any planned ATM Marine unit is a QRF amphibious unit for special duties, such as landing on enemy beaches and special amphibious reconnaissance under the sole command of the Navy. Sort of like a lite version of PASKAL,but more broad-based in it's duties. So they can help lighten the burden of PASKAL units without replacing them. Sort of like British Royal Marines la,for me they embody the true spirit of special naval infantry units.

What I hate is for the formation of a Naval Infantry system like the USMC nowadays. Now USMC is used way too much as ground infantry,until in my view it's already become a bloated & redundant alternative unit to the US Army & because of this they are viewed more as grunts that lost the USMC elite status. This also creates overlapping responsibilities and unnecessary competition by USMC and US Army for funds, equipment and potential recruits & officer candidates.

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Oct 11 2013, 03:44 PM

Haha AV8 lintas sungai Klang boleh la,laut dalam 20-30 meter dah sah la tak bleh.
bukannya amphibious sangat. Amphibious operation kena equipment khas.


TNI-Marinir PT-76

Rasanya kalau equipment Marin Malaysia ni awal2 Landing Craft aje dah ok kot? lagi advanced equipment kena tunggu next budget la.



This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Oct 23 2013, 11:23 AM

Hmm dunno la...Kalau ikut specs memang BTR-80 ni amphibious vehicle,so tak heran la. Kalau nak kira SIBMAS pun dikategorikan sebagai Amphibious APC ,tapi takde plak pernah nampak buat Amphibious operations.


SIBMAS rear section showing propellers for Amphibious operations

Is someone seriously discussing this?




Kaji semula konsep PLKN
(Klik untuk sambungan ke www.Kosmo.com.my)

Something about the murder/kidnapping at Pum-Pum island.

Just emerged that while there are a PGA base nearby,the management of the resort did not allow PGA personnel to patrol the area near & around the resort to 'not scare the tourists'.

go figure.....

Sure ke? rasanya Bradley dari awal lagi design as IFV.
Tak pernah la pulak dengar Bradley jenis APC. Zaman-zaman tu US guna M113 sebagai APC.

Lain function IFV dgn APC tu.....IFV tu offensive weapon, APC tu defensive weapon.

Ah,takde la actual section ATM variable sampai camni weapon system dia....
Nampak sangat cuma tunjuk time parade. Actual section lebih logic ada 8 orang,iaitu 7 rifleman (termasuk seorang commander & seorang M203 grenadier) & 1 LMG gunner guna Minimi.

Arab Saudi wants to buy 15,000 (yes, FIFTEEN THOUSAND) BGM-712A TOW AT Guided Missiles.

Link: Saudi Arabia to buy 15,000 TOW Missiles-DSCA

agak2 nak buat apa tu?

Dua-dua sistem Conscription dengan sistem Professional Army ada pros and cons.

JS Izumo

Kasi goyang sama itu PLA-Navy....

Kenapa China tak ikut doctrine Russia, strategi Attack on US carrier battle groups guna Anti-Ship missile,rather than trying ship-to-ship battle?


Tu-22M with 2 underwing KH-22 (AS-4 "Kitchen") Anti-ship Missiles.


From the movie "The Sum of All Fears". Yes, ada banyak inaccuracies berkenaan US fleet defence systems & CAP fighters,tapi the main idea is that attacking US carrier groups using anti-ship missiles as an alternative to ship-to-ship combat. Lagipun best jugak tengok US carrier kena blast ni hehehe