Thai Army Seeks Bt770 Billion To Buy Tanks, Guns And Bullet-Proof Jackets

[Phatcharanan]

Body: Paper machete

Obviously the Paper Machete costs will go up due the negotiations, End cost per unit likely to be closer to 2 million baht.

2 million for a big knife made from paper??

[mark45y]

The Japanese surrendered to the Americans after the second atomic bomb was dropped. The British occupied Thailand and repatriated the Japanese to Japan. Yes Thailand was occupied by a colonial power, 1941. So much for that myth eh?

Hi mark45y

Thailand was allied with Japan in WW2!!. Thailand, immediatly prior to -- and during -- the war had anexed territories from both Britain and France. Whilst British forces did briefly take control of Thailand -- it is a stretch to describe it as an "occupation" ---- and most certainly not a colonization.

IN 1941 limited fighting had broken out between Thai and French forces along Thailand's eastern frontier. Military stalemate ensued with the Thais dominant on land and the French dominant at sea. Japan interceded with the Vichy regime in France on behalf of Thailand. France agreed in March 1941 to cede 54,000 square kilometers of Laotian territory west of the Mekong and most of the Cambodian province of Battambang to Thailand. Thailand looked very favorably upon Japan after to this.

Whilst Japanese forces did invade Thailand's territory on December 8, 1941 --- after only some 2 hours Prime Minister Phibunsongkhram, ordered the cessation of all resistance against the Japanese. On December 21, 1941, a military alliance with Japan was signed and Thailand declared war on Britain and the United States.

Cynics suggest this was done to enable Thailand to seek "revenge" on Burma for long past military indignities burned forever into the Thai psyche.

Less than 5 months later Thailand invaded Burma (a British colony) and annexed an area of Burma containing the Shan States and Kengtung.

These areas were ceded back to Burma, in 1946.

There have been books written on why Thailand allied themselves with Japan during WW II. I won't dwell on them but my personal opinion would lean toward opium cultivation in Burma and dislike about fighting on the same side as the Chinese who at the time were discriminated against in Thailand.

Britain was a colonial power and did occupy Thailand for one year. That much is fact. I didn't mean to imply nor did I state that Britain colonized Thailand.

The limited fighting you refer to is called by most historians The Franco Thai war and is celebrated by the Victory Monument in Bangkok. I think the Thais think they won. But I am not debating any of the information you presented.

[bangon04]

The sniper rifles already proved to be especially useful in the little May crowd control problems in central Bangkok.

As for any other small arms - waste of money, because the Thai army will just hand them over to anyone who demands them, or raids their depots.

[housepainter]

The purchase of any tanks is to deploy them on the streets and surpress the population. A small population that is. Those who wish to occupy the seats of government power. The puppets at the end of the generals' strings.

Then again such proposed purchases are pure fiction. The word is budget. Money in. Not out. It is also timed as rumours of coups abound and the agenda is quite clear. The military have, do and will run this country. This is simply pay off time as the Government is powerless to refuse, with hold, apply strings of their own or negotiate this demand. It is a simple do it or leave. Next?

If they equivocate even minutely they will be removed from office and the next lot installed. It's called a coup. It's to bring unity to the country, acting in the best interests of, avoiding blood shed, maintaining peace; you know the rhetoric that some of us call lies.

Don't try to think too deeply on this one or read too much into weapons analysis and deployment. This is a join the dots exercise. Think bank balances, graft, corruption and Abhisit seeing out his full term awnd being returned to Office.

Meanwhile, Thailand burns as the Generals fiddle.

Same old same old then.

[rubl]

The purchase of any tanks is to deploy them on the streets and surpress the population. A small population that is. Those who wish to occupy the seats of government power. The puppets at the end of the generals' strings.

... end removed

As an opinion I can accept what you write, but you state this as if it is a fact. can you please provide some insight as to why you think to know this so definitively?

[philw]

The purchase of any tanks is to deploy them on the streets and surpress the population. A small population that is. Those who wish to occupy the seats of government power. The puppets at the end of the generals' strings.

Then again such proposed purchases are pure fiction. The word is budget. Money in. Not out. It is also timed as rumours of coups abound and the agenda is quite clear. The military have, do and will run this country. This is simply pay off time as the Government is powerless to refuse, with hold, apply strings of their own or negotiate this demand. It is a simple do it or leave. Next?

If they equivocate even minutely they will be removed from office and the next lot installed. It's called a coup. It's to bring unity to the country, acting in the best interests of, avoiding blood shed, maintaining peace; you know the rhetoric that some of us call lies.

Don't try to think too deeply on this one or read too much into weapons analysis and deployment. This is a join the dots exercise. Think bank balances, graft, corruption and Abhisit seeing out his full term awnd being returned to Office.

Meanwhile, Thailand burns as the Generals fiddle.

Same old same old then.

Regrettably you are dead right.

[barrybankruad]

The purchase of any tanks is to deploy them on the streets and surpress the population. A small population that is. Those who wish to occupy the seats of government power. The puppets at the end of the generals' strings.

... end removed

As an opinion I can accept what you write, but you state this as if it is a fact. can you please provide some insight as to why you think to know this so definitively?

History repeats, and in this Country continues to repeat itself.

[rubl]

Regrettably you are dead right.

Regrettably only in a general sense rather than in all specifics, I'm afraid. IMHO of course, like most of us

Edited February 2, 2011 by rubl

[rubl]

The purchase of any tanks is to deploy them on the streets and surpress the population. A small population that is. Those who wish to occupy the seats of government power. The puppets at the end of the generals' strings.

... end removed

As an opinion I can accept what you write, but you state this as if it is a fact. can you please provide some insight as to why you think to know this so definitively?

History repeats, and in this Country continues to repeat itself.

In a general sense maybe true, but not always in specific cases. To call this proof goes a wee bit too far.

[mark45y]

The sniper rifles already proved to be especially useful in the little May crowd control problems in central Bangkok.

As for any other small arms - waste of money, because the Thai army will just hand them over to anyone who demands them, or raids their depots.

I suppose you can document numerous times the Thai Army has handed over weapons to any one who demanded them.

[mark45y]

The purchase of any tanks is to deploy them on the streets and surpress the population. A small population that is. Those who wish to occupy the seats of government power. The puppets at the end of the generals' strings.

Then again such proposed purchases are pure fiction. The word is budget. Money in. Not out. It is also timed as rumours of coups abound and the agenda is quite clear. The military have, do and will run this country. This is simply pay off time as the Government is powerless to refuse, with hold, apply strings of their own or negotiate this demand. It is a simple do it or leave. Next?

If they equivocate even minutely they will be removed from office and the next lot installed. It's called a coup. It's to bring unity to the country, acting in the best interests of, avoiding blood shed, maintaining peace; you know the rhetoric that some of us call lies.

Don't try to think too deeply on this one or read too much into weapons analysis and deployment. This is a join the dots exercise. Think bank balances, graft, corruption and Abhisit seeing out his full term awnd being returned to Office.

Meanwhile, Thailand burns as the Generals fiddle.

Same old same old then.

Your comment is silly. How many tanks were deployed on Bangkok streets? A tank is not the best weapon for crow control. What kind of tanks would be best to deploy on the streets?

You make no sense. Graft, corruption all those things yes. But the tanks are not for the street. Heavens no.

[Scott]

Do tanks work very well in dense jungle?

[mark45y]

Do tanks work very well in dense jungle?

One of the reasons the Thais won the Franco Thai war is they had tanks and the French did not. I suppose you could ask the French.

[TITI1971]

read between the lines...

We don't going to do a new coup....in exchange we need Bt770 Billion to renew some material...

[OzMick]

Do tanks work very well in dense jungle?

Where is the dense jungle in Isaan?

[OzMick]

The purchase of any tanks is to deploy them on the streets and surpress the population. A small population that is. Those who wish to occupy the seats of government power. The puppets at the end of the generals' strings.

Then again such proposed purchases are pure fiction. The word is budget. Money in. Not out. It is also timed as rumours of coups abound and the agenda is quite clear. The military have, do and will run this country. This is simply pay off time as the Government is powerless to refuse, with hold, apply strings of their own or negotiate this demand. It is a simple do it or leave. Next?

If they equivocate even minutely they will be removed from office and the next lot installed. It's called a coup. It's to bring unity to the country, acting in the best interests of, avoiding blood shed, maintaining peace; you know the rhetoric that some of us call lies.

Don't try to think too deeply on this one or read too much into weapons analysis and deployment. This is a join the dots exercise. Think bank balances, graft, corruption and Abhisit seeing out his full term awnd being returned to Office.

Meanwhile, Thailand burns as the Generals fiddle.

Same old same old then.

Your argument seems to be based around coup rumours being a warning from the military to give us what we request. The only coup rumours recently have come from the red idiot Jatuporn and his ilk. While they have an agenda, I am quite certain that it is not getting the military a budget increase. You have added 1 and 1 and come up with 11.

[bangon04]

Do tanks work very well in dense jungle?

Where is the dense jungle in Isaan?

I read that the jungle coverage in 1945 was over 75 per cent in Thailand, while it is currently 16 per cent.

Obviously it was all trampled down by Thai tanks on manoeuvres

[monkfish]

Hope the UK and other nations follow Germany's stance and refuse to sell.

My advice spend the money training the police how to control crowds (without M16's) may be a better option.Unless of course Thailand is at war?

Edited February 2, 2011 by monkfish

[Credo]

So they need new toys for the boys.

I have to wonder just who the enemy is. I have no doubt that the military could use some new tanks, but if they are worried about Cambodia, then Tanks don't see to be the best investment.

As far as tanks being the pivotal weapon against the French, I doubt it. The French don't have a long history of winning of winning wars.

[mark45y]

So they need new toys for the boys.

I have to wonder just who the enemy is. I have no doubt that the military could use some new tanks, but if they are worried about Cambodia, then Tanks don't see to be the best investment.

As far as tanks being the pivotal weapon against the French, I doubt it. The French don't have a long history of winning of winning wars.

The Opposing Forces

French forces in Indochina consisted of an army of approximately fifty thousand men. The most obvious deficiency of the French army lay in its shortage of armour: it could only field twenty antiquated Renault FT-17s against the Thai army's 134.

The Thai Army was a relatively well-equipped force. Consisting of some sixty thousand men, it was made up of four armies, the largest of which was the Burapha Army with its five divisions. Independent formations under the direct control of the army high command included two motorised cavalry battalions, one artillery battalion, one signals battalion, one engineer battalion and one armoured regiment. The artillery had available a mixture of aged Krupp and modern Bofors howitzers and field guns, while sixty Carden-Loyd tankettes and thirty Vickers six-ton medium tanks made up the bulk of the army's tank arm.

[folium]

As an ex-armoured soldier thought I might add my thoughts on the role and practicality of armoured vehicles in SE Asia.

The money the RTA wishes to spend is on replacing its 60 year old M41 light tanks. If they have any sense, and don't fall prey to a "generous" salesman, they would go for the Stingray Mark2, as they already run the Mk1 version, and it is ideally suited to SE Asian conditions and could hold its own against most neighbours AFVs. The Stingray is a decent mix of the 3 key components of any tank, namely

Mobility

Protection

Firepower

All tanks are built around this holy trinity with tradeoffs/focuses to meet the required task. In a SE Asian context Mobility and Firepower are the key variables, while at the same time preserving its Shock Effect role for urban roles of a coup variety. The old M41s played a starring role in Bangkok 2006. This role is well known to such a degree that in mid 1960's Vietnam the fear of a military coup was so severe that one evening when US advisers were delivering new M41 tanks after midnight to avoid Saigon's normally chaotic traffic, the then dictator General Khanh was so alarmed by their distinctive sound (M41s are particularly noisy tanks) that he fled to Vung Tau, over 50 kilometres away.

The Americans made pretty good use of their M48s in Vietnam (some of these now reside with the RTA), especially the variant models, flame thrower and engineer equipped, as a well protected platform. Road clearance was also well practised and in order to save time instead of manual sweeps for mines and IEDs they ran 2 M48s along a route, each one track on the road and one track off. Any mines detonated would throw a track or blow some road wheels, but it made for swift route clearance.

Hopefully the RTA will also avoid the 1980s tank purchasing debacle of cut price Chinese tanks without sufficient spares, which can now be seen in a very different environment. See hyperlink below:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/security/187444/fisheries-dept-brings-in-the-big-guns/page-2/

[notime]

How about United Nations banning all arms trade? I mean not just the "illegal" arms trade but ALL. The countries who want to have arms would have to be able to produce them. Imagine Thai-made tanks, Myanmar made rockets and Lao made submarines .. ops sorry their lakes and rivers aren't deep enough .. maybe Vietnam subs. Or all the strongmen of Africa having to advance their economies to obtain more than machetes. Maybe that would make some difference to the people's ability to defend themselves from the corrupt and despotic regimes? The only problem is that UN is made of governments not people nations. It should in fact be called UG .. United Governments.

[folium]

Notime, straying a little off topic and all very nice and idealistic, but about as much chance of that happening as prostitution being banned (or is just enforcing an existing law?) here in Thailand. Same reason for both the arms trade and prostitution, there's way too much money/jobs involved.

Also if you're a professional soldier it's nice to know that you go off to fight in something that's actually going to do the job you're asked to do. Try running a business today with a typewriter and slide rule. You would get the job done but not in the most effective way.

[folium]

Sorry Mark45y, but tanks ARE for the street, if real fighting is not involved. Tanks in a FIBUA (fighting in built up areas) scenario is pretty tricky due to confined spaces, inability to elevate main armament to engage rooftop positions etc, as the Russians found out to their huge cost in Grozny during the first Chechen war. The Israelis used their armour as standoff, mobile, protected fire platforms during their invasion of the Gaza Strip thus using its key strengths to best use.

But back to tanks on the street...They are brilliant in a coup scenario as they look the part, and really make the point, and get the pictures round the world quicker. As to crowd control, yes pretty limited unless you go for the Napoleonic "whiff of grapeshot" technique for quelling protests. As we are seeing in Cairo having the tanks there is all fine and dandy but utterly pointless unless you mean to use them. The Chinese were brutally efficient in using their armoured vehicles to literally crush the Tianamen square protests. Talking of the Chinese, the RTA has a fleet of Scorpion recce vehicles, though in need of engine and equipment upgrades (another part of this package), and their 76mm main arnament comes with a nifty cannister round (basically a massive shotgun cartridge, stuffed with steel pellets) which would dramatically clear any protestors up to 100m away. Designed post Korean war as a way of dealing with massed waves of infantry at close range (cf the Claymore).

Your comment is silly. How many tanks were deployed on Bangkok streets? A tank is not the best weapon for crow control. What kind of tanks would be best to deploy on the streets?

You make no sense. Graft, corruption all those things yes. But the tanks are not for the street. Heavens no.

[mark45y]

A five million dollar crowd control vehicle? Do you work for the Thai Army?

Anyone who would spend 5 million for a vehicle to control crowds is nuts.

Armoured cars with water cannon OK. Grapeshot on crowds? In Thailand!!

Edited February 3, 2011 by mark45y

[inmysights]

Perhaps the Defence Ministry should start selling some of the 2 gazillion generals on ebay to raise some funds for those projected purchases. I am sure quite a few people around the world would love to display a Thai army general on their mantelpiece; something with which to impress visitors and house guests: "Look what I recently got myself, a real Thai general!"

Out of interest, which country in the world, per capita, has as many generals as Thailand, including Burma?

Anyone know?

[folium]

Tanks are for coups, not riots unless you are going down the Chinese/Tianamen Square, or even Waco approach of utter overkill.

Either way tanks/AFVs make a point either to intimidate or utterly crush opposition in a civil unrest scenario. 200 Stingray 2s or the equivalent will do the RTA nicely for either posing around Bangkok for the next coup or taking on anything neighbouring powers currently possess.

The M41 is a 60 year old machine (the US Army traded their's in in 1969), noisy, gas guzzling (not diesel) and with a limited range. It's starring role in the 2006 coup was its final act, it needs replacing and if as you say the Thai-French war of 1941 boiled down to superior quantity and quality of armour, who can blame the RTA for wanting to trade in ex-Vietnam US castoffs for something better.

[folium]

Thailand is a very good example of the use of tanks and armoured vehicles in an urban, civil unrest scenario. For the 2006 military coup the M41 [lower image below] had a starring role and the presence of tanks made the point and got the message round the country and world very fast.

By contrast the "disturbances" in April 2010 saw the use of Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs) rather than tanks [see top image of Chinese made Type 85 APC]. An APC is basically an armoured bus for moving troops around and smashing barricades where necessary. The "tanks" captured and destroyed by the protestors were nothing of the sort.

Edited February 4, 2011 by folium

[mark45y]

Thailand is a very good example of the use of tanks and armoured vehicles in an urban, civil unrest scenario. For the 2006 military coup the M41 [lower image below] had a starring role and the presence of tanks made the point and got the message round the country and world very fast.

By contrast the "disturbances" in April 2010 saw the use of Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs) rather than tanks [see top image of Chinese made Type 85 APC]. An APC is basically an armoured bus for moving troops around and smashing barricades where necessary. The "tanks" captured and destroyed by the protestors were nothing of the sort.

I know you are armor and all that and I was stationed at Fort Knox for a while but to suggest a tank is the preferred vehicle for crowd control unless the crowd is a crowd other tanks is bizarre.

[folium]

Please read what I have said carefully.

Tanks are a key part of coups but have little part to play in riot control unless you go for the Napoleonic approach which is unthinkable in any decent society today. Hence, only authoritarian states use armoured vehicles against their own people, see Tiananmen square or the suppression of the coup in Moscow 1993, when you had T80 main battle tanks pounding the White House parliamentary Building into a smoking ruin. A powerful image of intent and power that is unlikely to be repeated in any self-respecting countries. In April 2010 the RTA used APCs as protected buses and battering rams to move ground troops forward.

Tanks are the classic icon of a coup across the world, hence their continued appearance in most military coups and the old cliche of "parking your tanks on someone's lawn" as a statement of aggressive intent.