Is the Altay tank the only indispensable solution?
The First World War is famous for trench warfare. Machine guns and all elements providing heavy fire support from the rear locked the sides in hard-to-reach trenches. At this stage, the first tanks, as a British invention, appeared on the scene. The main purpose of the tanks was to break through the enemy trenches under armor protection and to create a suitable ground for infantry attack.
With the Second World War, a development was observed in the use of tanks in the operational fields. In parallel with the technological development, they turned into much faster and more effective tools. They were able to carry out operations in large geographies, so they could hit the armies from behind or from unexpected points (German Blitzkrieg, that is, the lightning war tactic, the downing of the French Majino line, etc.). But you couldn't just occupy a city with tanks, seize the enemy's position and hold it. Therefore, the concept of tank has assumed an unthinkable identity without infantry and infantry operations without tanks.
The cold war period that followed and the European plains, where the war was most strongly anticipated, changed this cooperation and made it even stronger. Because now there were nuclear weapons on the battlefield. The tank provided an isolated area against NBC effects and increased the survivability of the soldiers. When you put the infantry in armored combat and personnel carrier vehicles, you were getting the most ideal solution. The plot of the war had become international as follows: Tanks would pierce the enemy with their armor, firepower and operational capabilities, and the infantry would follow them and win the war.
All armies in the Eastern and Western bloc developed their armored units according to this concept. For this reason, all Main Battle Tanks (AMT) are shaped in a similar way. But the world was much larger than this battlefield of dreams.
After the Second World War, it became a priority for the French, who were trying to claim their African colonies, to have an easily transported and usable light tank. Since they were already in a far corner of Europe, they were less likely to face Russian tanks. In Africa, the limited means and capabilities of colonial societies were not enough to pose an armored threat to the French. For this reason, the French carried out their first national tank work with the light tracked MX-13. Then came the much lighter wheeled MX-10RC and other armored vehicles. They served the French army successfully for many years. They provided the firepower and flexibility they wanted on the field.
The same tanks were ineffective in the India-Pakistan wars and brought great losses to the parties. A similar experience was experienced by the (North) Vietnamese forces with the Soviet-made amphibious PT-76 tank. The overwhelming majority of armored operation attempts were unsuccessful. However, many countries such as South Africa were working in the field of heavy-weight light armored vehicles and were successfully using the products. After all, each battlefield had its own unique chemistry and countries continued to experience it by living.
Having experienced many combat vehicles from the French MX-13 light tank to the German Leopard 2, an idea came to the mind of the staff of the Indonesian army. Because the basic fact they realized was that their country was too mountainous and forested to allow heavy tanks to operate. The tropical vegetation was so dense that it impaired the tank crew's sense of sight and direction. In short, in this geography, the tank should put a certain distance, not in front of the infantry, go behind the infantry, and give priority to providing fire support to the infantry.
Lighter vehicles meant higher operational capability in this region with fairly high rainfall. Such vehicles naturally got stuck in the mud less and they crossed rivers and streams more easily. They also had the advantage of having a higher profile. Carrying a higher amount of ammunition in this geography, where roads and infrastructure were problematic, provided significant advantages, not only in terms of widening the field of view. Thus, frequent replenishment would not be necessary.
Unlike many developed countries, it did not make sense for Indonesia, which has limited resources, to use the tank gun only as a means of direct fire. The country had a geography spread over a very wide area, some as big as Turkey and some small, innumerable islands. In other words, when they deployed a tank somewhere, when they realized that they needed a platform that could both intervene with direct firepower and participate in the war with indirect fire up to 15-16 km, the solution came naturally. In short, the tanks used in these lands should serve the expected purpose and give their money's worth.
Already in a geography isolated by the ocean, the odds of tank-to-tank warfare were low. Because it would be difficult for possible enemies to bring tanks to these places and to dispatch and supply them after they have been brought. The existence of ATGM-like missiles developed against tanks was not yet considered necessary in this geography. Indonesia did not need to think about ATGMs. Because the dense vegetation formed a natural protection layer. The important thing was to have well-trained and experienced military personnel who adopted the platform and were able to use it after natural shelters, both in the city and on the mountain.
This sequence of requirements can be extended within the cause and effect relationship. But the bottom line: Although Tank was a need for Indonesia, it had a different definition than the rest of the world. The country, which set out with this recipe, started to look for a technical partner. As a result, Turkey won the tender, albeit using many commercial sympathetic instruments, similar to what other countries did. Thanks to this, the Kaplan MT (Harimau) tank was developed for Indonesia. Realizing the meaning and importance of a similar need for itself while the tank was still in its development stage, Vietnam did not fail to formally convey its interest in this context to the Indonesian government.
This success of our FNSS company did not make much noise in the Turkish public, probably because it was developed not for our army but for another country. But it should not be forgotten that the horizon of thought of all people of the world has developed with technology. People; they began to blend their experiences with their needs and the requirements of their geography. It has become a necessity to develop a country-specific solution in the field of defense industry, similar to the personalized solutions we observed in the same civilian commercial life. It is evaluated that defense industry companies that can comprehend this and show the flexibility to produce solutions in this direction can start to appeal to a wide audience with different solutions suitable for the expectations of different customers all over the world.
Like many countries with developing industrial and technological capabilities, Italy also pursued the ideal of a domestic and national tank. This is how Ariete AMT emerged. It can be said that this tank is a very heavy and capable fighter for the era in which it was developed. However, it is similar to all other NATO tanks. The Ariete experience brought with it the question: Should this tank be the real need for Italy?
The geographies where wars take place are generally the places where there are human settlements. So instead of a heavy tank, an armored vehicle with agile wheels can very well be used. Especially in a geography like Europe where developed infrastructure is dominant. They developed a low-profile 8X8 chassis and placed a full-power tank gun on it (Centauro 1 and 2). Thus, the concept of the Tank Destroyer (tank destroyer) emerged. In fact, the truth that Italy realized was the same that Japan would realize and implement years later. They needed not just a tank, but another vehicle alongside it. More affordable, more mobile, easier, less armored. Because the world was big and the heavy tank could not be a logical solution in every battlefield with the classical understanding.
The example of Japan, which implements a similar idea by deepening it at the doctrinal level, draws attention as an original solution today. While developing the Em modern Type 10 main battle tank, they also implemented the Type 16 Meneuver Combat Vehicle design. The two vehicles were different from each other, from the caliber of the gun it had to the groove-set structure. While the AMT has an autoloader, the MCV uses additional personnel to perform this function. In short, the awareness of the “need for two separate vehicles” was reflected in the design philosophy of the platforms from the very foundation. With the concept of Mobile Protected Firepower, today's superpower, the United States, has turned to a similar quest.
Let's also look at the current India-China border line tension. The advantages of China, which brought its own manufactured light tanks to the region, over India, which was stifled by the limits of the ultra-modern T-90s it bought from Russia, were also shared in open sources. For this reason, the Pakistani army quickly found it necessary to purchase these Chinese tanks. In fact, this behavior is as natural as the Turkish Atak attack helicopters, which are designed to operate in high temperature and altitude conditions, as ideal platforms for Pakistan. As a result, the world arms market, which is an area where arms producing countries develop and sell according to their own wishes, is turning into a situation that embraces different aims and pursuits.
While closing this chapter, I would like to ask the following questions: Is the Altay the only tank needed for Turkey? Can a single Altai-focused single-type tank meet the needs of our country? Is it used in the same effectiveness on all fronts? I will continue our search for answers on this issue in future articles. With all respect.
