The biggest problem with teh Harimau (and its height) seems to be its selection of turret. As I earlier mentioned the Cockerill 3000 series seems to be designed for IFV...turned into tank killer or fire support platform in mind . With the Cockerill able to be fitted with multiple sized calibre gun from 30-120mm and in multiple platform.
That could explain why its turret basket is so tall. In an IFV, especially western IFV which is as tall as a house, the increased "depth" will be useful by being able to be accommodated with multiple IFVs hull it also added a more refined center of gravity (CoG) by being closer not further from the ground. This avoid capsizing in top heavy vehicles that is dictated to be able to traverse 60 deg slope as standard in many armored vehicle requirements.
That is why, when installed on top a Leo it has those distinct neck, because its not friggin designed for tanks, but IFV wannabe tank
I'm not saying the Harimau is bad tank, but I said comparatively with other competitors (BAe MPF, GDLS Griffin III or the Type 15) this is not as refined simply because its design seem to coerce the fitting of an IFV designed turret into a tank, real tank not IFV turned into tank. The turret selection is such an issue that there's offer from the Turkish side to design specific turret to better fir into the HArimau (and probably lower its size signature).
Then there's the argument that Sabrah is even taller, you do realize that Sabrah is a GDLS product based on an ASCOD (an IFV) ?
And then another argument said that its taller because it offers more depression, While having better depression is good, its quite a tradeoffs. I don't see the US Army or Chinese army is dissatisfied with the MPF and the type 15 depression being less tall..
The more concern is if this eventually have to meet a more compact adversary like the Type-15 or MPF in the battlefield. It must be realized that whoever wants to land in Indonesian shores is not some hippie gangs but a country (that is 99% guaranteed to be stronger than we are). Tank vs tank is not as rare as you might think. And its just fact, that being larger, the Harimau seems an easier target to spot.
Again I must stress that I'm not calling the Harimau a bad tank (not at all), its just the competitors has better volume efficiency. The same way an Abrams is more Volume efficient than a Merkava. The lesser volume efficiency seems to come from our side selecting its turret.
The other argument is, its fine because its mainly designed for infantry, yes its fine, I have no problem with that too, but being overtly obsessed with fire support and infantry support is dangerous. The IJA of the 1930 design their tanks with specific infantry and lesser adversary foe in mind. The Type 92 were only armed with machine guns and the most numerous of all (type 95) were armed with low velocity 37mm gun. It works in China against the underequipped KMT, works half as good against the Soviet army which has experienced the Stalin's purge, works ok against the Brits in Malaya, but totally useless once the war dragged on and the M3/M4 combo enters the battlefield
I saw multiple similar arguments echoed here on why we should not invest in larger guns L55A1/130mm L51 or better long rod penetrators simply because our 105/120mm is adequate against fortifications and so on.
But alas, everyone can agree or disagree.
www.kkip.go.id
