MLRS .... A big thread to Singapore?
-
You been unjust in your compare - the MLRS used up all this rockets and get 500m , our 155mm x 1 gun if one round cause 50m , you must count all the rounds that come with the gun also . Imagine if 12 rounds x 50m - that is already 600m !!!!Originally posted by banzie:I agree with some of you...
I think in an likely event... MLRS can easily knock out our air bases into a temporary unless... But our fighter planes don't just reside in Singapore alone... But all around our northern neighbour...
2ndly The likelyhood that can do that is by destroying our runway.. coz our planes mostly hide underground...
A little misunderstanding by most people is that MLRS can easily start shooting within a min and left the location within a min before a single F2000 can be setup... Unless Singapore have a 24 hour battery always ready and looking for arty else its amost impossible for you to know when it's coming and where it left... The MLRS would probably be then at soemwhere else resupplying..
Incase that most doesn't know... MLRS had a very wide area of destruction... Probably at least 500m compared to Howitzer 50m if I'm not wrong. Likely while the SAF boys crossing the Causeway... and the "XXXXX" to the north... they will recieved constant bombardment... by the MLRS..
Then again.... I doubt SAF would crumbled singlely by the MLRS of Malaysia perhaps temporary.... the weaponary of SAF is sufficent to retaliate a big blow back to our neighbour without the effort of a wink.... -
-
[quote]Originally posted by mfscrewu:
By the way, it is also the same bollocks that enable you to slouch in your chair surfing the web, participate in a forum.[quote]
Yes, I do indeed slouch in my Snowcrash to surf. That, I earned the right to do so, now having happily retired at 35.
When I say this country has no means to defend itself for prolonged periods, I mean it.
Remember - this world is not what it seems to be. -
I'm sure many of us will bleed just so that our flag remains red. For we may not be fighting for the government...but we will be fighting for each other and for our memories which can never be replaced.
-
The biggest threat....is mankind itself...
-
Aff, cant agree with u more
-
The strength of the MAF MLRS is in the sneak opening attack of our airbases.
There is no such thing as an entirely covert sneak attack as things stand now. Singapore`s capability at gathering information on military movements far exceeds that of Malaysia. They are still tackling C2 issues. They don`t even have the equivalent of our E-2Cs for heaven`s sake. Singapore would be aware of the movement of Astross batteries or other strategic assets around peninsula Malaysia. It is inconcievable to disallow ourselves information on such assets at all times. Even Malaysia would try to do the same given thier limitations or at least buy it from someone else.
They do not have enough launchers to flatten anything.
But if you are trying to pick a fight here... I'm your man. Where are you from?
And people over-estimate the destructive capability of a rocket versus hardened bunkers and shelters. The latter are made out to withstand such attacks which is why they are conceived in the first place. Also, a lesser armoured building would not fall like a pack of cards when hit by a handful of rockets. Hollywood stuffs. Do they even have hardened shelters or just as many as we do ? They can`t soak it as well as we do.
My point is that the presence of the Astross does have an effect on the tactical environment but does not change the strategic outcome of Singapore having the capability of a massive retaliation in averting and crushing a military invasion from the north. They know it. They bought the Astross as a deterrence because of the increased risk of casualties which gives them more room for negotiations. But they also know that if it does come to arms, they are out- gunned and out-numbered. And they know that under such circumstances, we`ll go for the jagular.
They are very much aware of the fact that using such weapons on the civilian population/assets of Singapore(which is a high likelihood given our compactness), would bring down the wrath of the world on them. They would have lost the battle in the UN. And they would have unwittingly turn the world on them for disrupting the world economy after an attack(worst...sneak!!) on an important chain of key centers in the world economy.
I forgot to add that I seriously suspect the professionalism of the Malaysian Armed Forces in general(if not all of thier uniform groups) with loyalty and corruption being major issues. Something they must understand to be extremely critical in times of conflict. -
Hmm, I read your 1st posting again and in nowhere did you say anything about defending for prolonged periods, so I wonder which point should I be rebutting instead? You mean what you say, of course that's because it is your view, not mine. Pray that the time don't come or else you might have to eat your words.Originally posted by Singapore_Shit:Yes, I do indeed slouch in my Snowcrash to surf. That, I earned the right to do so, now having happily retired at 35.
When I say this country has no means to defend itself for prolonged periods, I mean it.
Remember - this world is not what it seems to be.
So being able to retire at 35 gives you the right to condemn the SAF? Wow, congrats to you for living in such a delusional world. Well, in this case, happy dreaming. So maybe lots of other folks who have served their time may also join in to condemn you as well.
True this world is not what it seems to be, remember neither is this country seems to be what you think either. -
Yes, I do indeed slouch in my Snowcrash to surf. That, I earned the right to do so, now having happily retired at 35.
When I say this country has no means to defend itself for prolonged periods, I mean it.
Remember - this world is not what it seems to be.
[/b][/quote]
1 question.
have u served in any armed forces before?maybe if u have u might understand the pride that we have for the country/army -
Go and look at our recent purchases from 2002 and onwards.Study them carefully, look at their usual deployment roles and range.Originally posted by Advante_101:Not defend from our neighbour tat who ? tok co-ck~~
Don't bleat like a lamb if you have no protection from a shepherd. So much ignorant twits these days.. -
some singaporeans believe that the SAF is equipped to take on even greater nations far and away, so what is the problem defending ourselves against any threats closer home, even for prolonged periods.Originally posted by Singapore_Shit:[quote]Originally posted by mfscrewu:
By the way, it is also the same bollocks that enable you to slouch in your chair surfing the web, participate in a forum.[quote]
Yes, I do indeed slouch in my Snowcrash to surf. That, I earned the right to do so, now having happily retired at 35.
When I say this country has no means to defend itself for prolonged periods, I mean it.
Remember - this world is not what it seems to be.
What have you earned?
The world is indeed not what it seems to be, get out of the well and see the real world. -
WW2 was when a lot of new weapons and concepts were invented and used for the first time in combat. Among them was the MLRS.
However, many weapon concepts had since been made obsolete now 60 years after WW2. Among them are the battleship, the towed anti-tank gun, the half track etc etc.
But the MLRS remains in service despite its shortcomings of being less accurate compared to howitzers and mortars. But technology has now made the rocket many times more accurate than its predecessor in WW2.
The advantage of the rocket over the arty gun is being able to carry a big warhead - up to 300mm inn WW2 - and being able to unleash a massive salvo (if you have enough of them) in a very short time.
The advantage of 100 rockets all impacting within a minute as opposed to many guns shooting 100 shells over several minutes is significant.
This kind of massive bombardment had been used by the Russians to successfully halt many enemy attacks of infantry and armour across a broad front. Of course, this advantage is offset by its lack of accuracy and you need a lof of launchers and a big supply of rockets.
But, apparently in WW2 at least, rockets are much easier to produce and still cheaper than the whole howitzer/shell package. To put it crudely, rockets - whether air launched or land based - were nothing more than flying bombs with a motor and fins attached.
England, US, Russia and Germany were all big users of rockets in WW2. The Russians were the biggest user, the Germans had the best rockets (I'm not talking about the V-2), the British mounted them on ships and the Americans even improvised launch racks mounted on on Sherman tank turrets.
Only Japan didn't use musch rockets cause she didn't have the capacity to make them in significant numbers.
Western countries today are not big fan of MLRS and though they are retained in service, howitzers and mortars are preferred. -
if i am right, MLRS is more effectively used as a counter fire battery.
is that true? -
I think any artillery can be used effectively as counter battery fire... I think, the range advantage of the MLRS might actually be a disadvantage in counter fire, cos the flight time of the rockets, is gonna be longer. Perhaps long enuff for the enemy artillery to "scoot" liao.
-
Just one point to note, looking at desert storm, MLRS seem to be a star of the show.
But the question to ask, 10 year later , how come british and america which does iraq again still using more artilitery pieces more ? -
My bet is the artillery, including MLRS, will be even more effective in the coming decades. Desert storm tactical/field commanders love the MLRS because it complements the rapid movement of mechanised units including the forward units like Apaches.Originally posted by storywolf:Just one point to note, looking at desert storm, MLRS seem to be a star of the show.But the question to ask, 10 year later , how come british and america which does iraq again still using more artilitery pieces more ?
For Malaysia's case, the MLRS serves more as a strategic tool to address its "limited" air power over the RSAF. rather than as a tactical weapon for precision saturated bombarment.
However, any country will need to ans to severe international reactions if such weapon is used in theaters where dense civilian population resides. -
The following is a short clip of the live-firing exercise involving the Astros MLRS from the Malaysian army. I found this clip from an official MAF website. Witness the power of rocket artillery!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7KYNrzPJWM -
If let say the enemy artillery managed to scoot fast enough... MLRS could just fire off in less than a min how fast does the arty in SG managed to pack up and leave the vecinity of 500m? Radius?Originally posted by Shotgun:I think any artillery can be used effectively as counter battery fire... I think, the range advantage of the MLRS might actually be a disadvantage in counter fire, cos the flight time of the rockets, is gonna be longer. Perhaps long enuff for the enemy artillery to "scoot" liao. -
Duplicate
-
Different thing... Arty are used for its accuracy and reload speed... Where as MLRS are used usally to bombard a large convoy of moving mechanised units...Originally posted by storywolf:Just one point to note, looking at desert storm, MLRS seem to be a star of the show.
But the question to ask, 10 year later , how come british and america which does iraq again still using more artilitery pieces more ?