Terrex - watsup?
-
Woah!! peace peace!!
The World's best assault rifle is the AK-47. Not the M-16, not the SAR-21!
Anyone watched Lord of War? -
Anyone has any idea if the Turks have already started production or fielded any Terrex? Or anyone has any idea the role or the variants the Turks are likely to build?
I have to disagree that a wheel unit needing a "mountain of wheels" is an unacceptable situation. Tracks need a lot of maintenance and spares, too, if I'm not wrong.
The Germans in WW2 used their armoured cars mainly for recce. Some of their 6 or 8 wheelers are very heavily-armed with what looked like 75mm AT guns. In practice, they are allowed to engage only if the enemy force is confirmed to be small.
How are the Americans using their Strykers? -
The Americans are using their Strykers to great effect in Iraq fighting off ambushes. The LAV have been so good at turning the table on insurgent ambushes that the insurgents have nicknamed it "The Great Destroyer". Often the mere presence of the Stryker in a convoy has led to the ambushers calling off the attack... so much so that some American commanders are actually trying to bait insurgents into attacking decoy convoys that are actually a Stryker trap (they do so by running armoured gun trunks to contact, keeping the Strykers hidden behind until the enemy is engaged at which point the LAVs will move in to finish the insurgents off).
Of course we need to take into account the fact that the Strykers are facing RPG warheads that were last generation (which SLAT can stop) and versus a loosely trained and organized enemy not attempting to make any big moves against them. In terms of counter-insurgency operations the mobility of the Stryker is a great asset when it comes to convoy protection or movement to contact with insurgent elements. -
Seems like plenty of pros in here...
Pls allow my 2 cents worth of limited knowledge onbith the SAR 21 and AV81.
SAR21.
The SAR 21 is indeed slightly heavier as compared to the M16 but please do not let us forget that the SAR 21 comes with scope and laser built in. Fixed this two attachements to the M16 and the M16, I suspect will become heavier.
However, from my experience with the SAR21, the biggest concern that STK and the ground units are facing is the issue of the absence of the iron sight. Why?
In the case of the scope glass cracking, the rifle user has got nothing else to use for aiming. This point was in fact verified by the weapon development warrant who happens to be in my BDE.
Also, the number of fraccastv raised for damaged scope for the first couple of years of the SAR 21 was alarming.(i know as i'm a techie).
AV81:
Jointly developed with the Turkish defence force, this baby has yet to seen action locally but there were speculations on the ground that it will eventually be used to replace the aging V200 despite the latter undergoing a re3cent refurbishment project. As many folks on line has mentioned, potential for the AV81 is endless. Just wait for your monthly issue of pioneer magazine and find out for yourself the lastest development.
Cheers!!
-
The problem is that we are fielding tranche 1 or 2 SAR21s while the newer export versions are better off in quality.Originally posted by ldffollower76:Seems like plenty of pros in here...
Pls allow my 2 cents worth of limited knowledge onbith the SAR 21 and AV81.
SAR21.
The SAR 21 is indeed slightly heavier as compared to the M16 but please do not let us forget that the SAR 21 comes with scope and laser built in. Fixed this two attachements to the M16 and the M16, I suspect will become heavier.
However, from my experience with the SAR21, the biggest concern that STK and the ground units are facing is the issue of the absence of the iron sight. Why?
In the case of the scope glass cracking, the rifle user has got nothing else to use for aiming. This point was in fact verified by the weapon development warrant who happens to be in my BDE.
Also, the number of fraccastv raised for damaged scope for the first couple of years of the SAR 21 was alarming.(i know as i'm a techie).
AV81:
Jointly developed with the Turkish defence force, this baby has yet to seen action locally but there were speculations on the ground that it will eventually be used to replace the aging V200 despite the latter undergoing a re3cent refurbishment project. As many folks on line has mentioned, potential for the AV81 is endless. Just wait for your monthly issue of pioneer magazine and find out for yourself the lastest development.
Cheers!!
The replacement level of the scope is horrendous. I could track one single SAR21 throughout a whole month and it's S/N would be in my head. -
Well i tink that the Terrex and SAR21 is what SG army is proud to have... I have seen terrex move around in jungle... They are good... They can do what an amourd 5 tonner can't do... I'm a 5 tonner driver,and 5 tonners have some limitation... What 5 tonner cannot do is what terrex have to offer... They are one sturdy veh that i will love to drive around... As for SAR21,i have not used it personally myself but i tink its charging handle can be used by left and right hand is quite good compared to M16 which u gotta use ur right hand to do it... I personally prefer the M16 as i am trained using it,and i tink that it is light... I tink that glock should give some credits to what STK and DSTA is trying to improve its weapons and veh to SAF... They are one bunch of ppl who worked thru their bones to see their product come out... Remember what happen to the cabbage rice combat ration??? DSTA sought our views to improve on the ration that wild boar will not even wanna to touch.. So what do we have now??? Canned drinks and tuna in our accsory packs... Improved flavour of our combat rations..
-
Gee... I didn't know about cabbage rice. Sounds dodgy.Originally posted by gaoxingdcf:Remember what happen to the cabbage rice combat ration??? DSTA sought our views to improve on the ration that wild boar will not even wanna to touch.. So what do we have now??? Canned drinks and tuna in our accsory packs... Improved flavour of our combat rations..
But how is canned drinks and tuna an improvement? We had Cap Ayam Sardines in the old days. Best dam sardines in the world. -
Its main advantage here is that the slats / chicken wire defeats the RPG and its superior speed allow "car" chase scenarios.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:The Americans are using their Strykers to great effect in Iraq fighting off ambushes. The LAV have been so good at turning the table on insurgent ambushes that the insurgents have nicknamed it "The Great Destroyer". Often the mere presence of the Stryker in a convoy has led to the ambushers calling off the attack... so much so that some American commanders are actually trying to bait insurgents into attacking decoy convoys that are actually a Stryker trap (they do so by running armoured gun trunks to contact, keeping the Strykers hidden behind until the enemy is engaged at which point the LAVs will move in to finish the insurgents off).
Of course we need to take into account the fact that the Strykers are facing RPG warheads that were last generation (which SLAT can stop) and versus a loosely trained and organized enemy not attempting to make any big moves against them. In terms of counter-insurgency operations the mobility of the Stryker is a great asset when it comes to convoy protection or movement to contact with insurgent elements.
It is impossible for a Bradley to chase after a fleeing pickup truck, whereas the Stryker has no problems.
You need to remember when enountering an IED, a Bradley has a better chance of survival. -
I am quite sure now that some commentators on this thread are highly emotional & when this happens, they are write long posts to lend weight ( no pun intended ) to their circuituous arguments.
I also sense that they have some sort of an attachment to the SAR 21. I think more than a few in this thread think that the SAR 21 is overweight & needs some time at the gym. Hope that STK gets working on this issue fast - anyone listening in from STK ??
A post mentioned that the slat armor in Strykers can defeat or render RPG or ATGMs less effective. I wish to correct this. If a HEAT warhead hits the slat head on, it will still detonate and the standoff distance between the slat and the Stryker armor is too short to negate the effect of the molten jet. It will still penetrate the armor. The slat works only when warhead goes between the slats. The warhead mechanism will then be crushed and rendered useless and will therefore not detonate.
Totally agree with the posts that armor such as Terrex belong to policing rear areas but only in low threat situations where opposition may have only early versions of RPGs or small arms only. You know what a 84 or LAW can do at close range to vehicles such as Terrex, what more latest variants of RPG7s and modern ATGMs. -
I am quite sure now that some commentators on this thread are highly emotional & when this happens, they are write long posts to lend weight ( no pun intended ) to their circuituous arguments.
Can one help repeating themselves when some people seem to be hard of hearing or choosing. When such a person uses weasel words (using dodgy words and phrases for emotional effect without supporting them), evasion of blatant fact (after numerous posts comparing the factual weight of the SAR to similar systems and getting no real reply to them) to rely on common myth as "proven" opinion (only taking opinion from people who are inexperienced with the weapon or worse, biased against it to start with )... can one be surprised that they are constantly pummeled with posts they cannot answer to.
I also sense that they have some sort of an attachment to the SAR 21. I think more than a few in this thread think that the SAR 21 is overweight & needs some time at the gym. Hope that STK gets working on this issue fast - anyone listening in from STK ??
Given what has been revealed by STK, I do not think STK has NOT been listening in, but that someone in here needs to get their hearing and eyesight checked for it seems that despite all the Janes they may read, they seem to have missed out the very obvious point that this issue has be adressed.
At least I back up my long posts on my position with fact, logic, and a proper accounting of all the quarters in this discussion... what has yours possibly offered so far except a constant denial and demostration of your general ignorance in most matters in regards to many things in here?
It seems you have a habit of revisiting old points after they have been demolished by your opposition with the very same old position... as if hoping bringing up a position already demolished with the same failed arguments will somehow make wishful thinking truth. Prehaps you were hoping that if you repeat a certain lie long enough it would become truth?
I noticed your quiet reversal in your opinion against the Terrex, all this after a rather nice post about armoured 5-tonners being more cost effective. Need I draw out more examples of your inherent dishonestly in discussion here? -
now is ayam brand wan,some more different flavours... U dun wanna to try the cabbage rice... IT sucks !!!!! And canned drinks,nw recruits and soldiers from the last time different... Last time soft drinks are in bottles and at that time where got canned nescafe and milo???Originally posted by moca:Gee... I didn't know about cabbage rice. Sounds dodgy.
But how is canned drinks and tuna an improvement? We had Cap Ayam Sardines in the old days. Best dam sardines in the world. -
I thought the Terrex was for Export only ?
-
SAR 21
I know it is hard to admit that one is overweight.
Terrex
The armored five tonners are what we can deploy now are good enough in very low threat scenarios. They can fill the role for strategic mobility such as in a troop convoy protected by wheeled AFVs. A vehicle such as Terrex ( if the SAF fields it & when we get it ) will naturally be a better option than an armored 5 tonner. However, it will be a more costly option.
A Terrex is still very vulnerable to RPGs and mines. Given that it has a large ( not to mention large signature ) passenger load, a hit from an RPG or ATGM will be devastating in terms of casualties. It shud not be exposed to the front lines. -
Let's not forget that what we see are basic models, without add-on armor kits and stuff that will be slapped on for different threat environments.
Look at a barebones Bradley or Stryker, one might say that they are as vulnerable to small arms and RPGs as the Terrex. Give it some slack man.. -
Of course it's hard to admit any point like that to you... given you have offered no solid facts or numbers to support your claim except to rely on subjective judgement and hearsay... to which there are just about more then enough counter-subjective judgement and hearsay as well... not to mention your opponents can actually come up with the numbers and facts to prove their case.Originally posted by glock:SAR 21
I know it is hard to admit that one is overweight.
Need we say more?
It's a bit like you saying it's hard for the allies to admit that they can't win the first Gulf War, after all that has been said and done. Don't fault your opponents for having a strong, verified position and choosing to stick with it while you choose to repeatedly bash your head into it.
It seems to me that you have this mindset that if you have a hammer, everything is a nail... even your own foot and head.
The armored five tonners are what we can deploy now are good enough in very low threat scenarios. They can fill the role for strategic mobility such as in a troop convoy protected by wheeled AFVs. A vehicle such as Terrex ( if the SAF fields it & when we get it ) will naturally be a better option than an armored 5 tonner. However, it will be a more costly option.
A Terrex is still very vulnerable to RPGs and mines. Given that it has a large ( not to mention large signature ) passenger load, a hit from an RPG or ATGM will be devastating in terms of casualties. It shud not be exposed to the front lines.
In your quest to save cents, it seems you have lost all your sense. It's one thing to get things cheaper, or get things cheaper that are but totally useless in their role. You seem to be suggesting plenty of ideas and points that indicate that the utility of an idea is irrelevant, as long as costs are saved.
You are making a vast mistake in judgement here. One needs to realize that the Terrax and 5-tonners were made for greatly different roles. The tonners were intended to ferry stuff around and not designed for serious off-road action or what have you not. The primary purpose of the Terrax is more that of a combat swiss-army knife to fufill roles that require high mobility but yet firepower and some protection... roles that a tonner can never do.
You seem to have this one-track mind that the Terrax was only made to be a battle taxi, of which was never the whole idea in the first place. Carrying troops is just but one of the roles it carries out. Is it intended to duke it out with heavy units? I don't think so.
It's clear enough that the "armoured" 5-tonner you so idolize cannot be used in scouting roles, high mobility pursuit, engaging the enemy, fire support and what have you not. In fact it's main job is to do that- ferry stuff around.
Forward recon units will certainly slap you in the face if you told them to go about their role with an armoured 5-tonner. A bionix is way too big and hefty for them, and a Rover is for all purposes as good as a pickup. The only other (proper) alternatives are either the flyer LSV (a light which has extreme mobility and firepower but no protection), or something like the Terrax (a medium unit with a more balanced mixed of mobility, firepower, and protection). Can you rig a tonner to swim across a river? Is a tonner mine resistant like the Terrax? Can you mount serious weapons on a tonner?
As I said, in your desire to cut costs the only thing you seem to have cut is your own intelligence. One might as well equip our soldiers with bows and arrows to fight and spoons to dig shellscrape (can reuse ammo for the bow and arrow, and spoons can serve other purposes besides digging as well).
What is behind your irrational desire to blast the Terrax? One can only guess but I see no motivation except being totally ignorant and stubborn to good reason.
As some have said, your posts exibit a common sense of which we all don't know comes from where. -
Who ever you are Mr Glock,Originally posted by glock:Terrex
The armored five tonners are what we can deploy now are good enough in very low threat scenarios. They can fill the role for strategic mobility such as in a troop convoy protected by wheeled AFVs. A vehicle such as Terrex ( if the SAF fields it & when we get it ) will naturally be a better option than an armored 5 tonner. However, it will be a more costly option.
A Terrex is still very vulnerable to RPGs and mines. Given that it has a large ( not to mention large signature ) passenger load, a hit from an RPG or ATGM will be devastating in terms of casualties. It shud not be exposed to the front lines.
My gut feel is that you are against every Made In Singapore military hardware, from the assualt rifles to the APCs.
Bro SG Tyrano has already pointed to you the reason as to why we need to have locally developed hardwares despite whatever the cost. But it seems to me that all whatever Bro Sg tyrano has mentioned doesn't get into you skull.
Pardon me for being rude but my questions for you is simple. When we purchase equipments form other countries o directly from the OEM, do you seriously and sincerely think that they will sell us the best and the most updated?
Also, talking about deploying armoured 5 tonners into conflicts areas be it low or high, do you know what are you taliking about. When the Armoured 5 tonners doctrine were first created, the intent was for it to be used as a intermin KINS asset. Let us not forget that the armoured 5tonners DO NOT have proper over head cover. Also, have you seen the armoured 5 tonners up close and operate from it before? I have and i can tell you that despite being coated with ever coating and having whatever armour plates, the 5 tonners at best can only be classified as a sofrt skin vehicle.
Eventually, the AV81(or other wheeled platform) will tak over the armoured 5 tonners.
Mr Glock, Please go and get yourself a life...
Cheers!! -
why tok until liddat lol... terrex ar.. use like how americans use their humvees lor... jkjk maybe use like scout stuff like tat la... much lighter roles tat were meant for heavier jeeps/trucks eg humvees or like some low armoured vehicles....(stay somewher far n command) or for convoy....
oh yea for the bradleys n stryker ... both were meant for diff roles.... put a stryker in a war against a powerful force n it will be wiped out cos of its low armour ... wher as a bradley MIGHT survive -
have u sat in a 5 tonner when it moves off road?
maybe u shd try once. and then u'll realise why it's not feasible for scout missions. -
LOL! I've been in a 5 tonner off road before... let's just say that while it was tons of fun it's not something I would want to go into real ops in. Do you want to know how many times the tilt alarm goes off when that thing is driving offroad?
As I said, Glock makes a lot of big statement... but his words make me think that he either served his NS (if he ever did so far) as a clerk in an office without knowing a whit of what really happens on grunt-level but yet somehow comes up with tons of "big" ideas on what the SAF should be... or worse, that he has seen all these things but yet lacked the common sense to put one and one together to see what ideas work or not.
Either way non of these make for really good positions coming from him. -
I must have knocked something loose in my head sitting near the tailboard of the 5 tonner as well. Thats how bumpy the ride is... lucky got helmet.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:LOL! I've been in a 5 tonner off road before... let's just say that while it was tons of fun it's not something I would want to go into real ops in. Do you want to know how many times the tilt alarm goes off when that thing is driving offroad?
As I said, Glock makes a lot of big statement... but his words make me think that he either served his NS (if he ever did so far) as a clerk in an office without knowing a whit of what really happens on grunt-level but yet somehow comes up with tons of "big" ideas on what the SAF should be... or worse, that he has seen all these things but yet lacked the common sense to put one and one together to see what ideas work or not.
Either way non of these make for really good positions coming from him.
My ass unfortunately, wasn't so well protected. Not funny to float in mid air for half a sec and the slam down onto those wooden benches. Then again, we also keh kiang lar, never put on the chastity oops i mean, seat belt. -
It's actually safer to lie flat down on the floor of the tonner... but yeah, getting your butt slammed (whatever that may mean) is never a good thing. Putting on the seat belt does not really help either... it helps to prevent you from falling out of the truck but it does not help to stop any of the pain of the ride.Originally posted by Shotgun:I must have knocked something loose in my head sitting near the tailboard of the 5 tonner as well. Thats how bumpy the ride is... lucky got helmet.
My ass unfortunately, wasn't so well protected. Not funny to float in mid air for half a sec and the slam down onto those wooden benches. Then again, we also keh kiang lar, never put on the chastity oops i mean, seat belt. -
The 5-tonner is a dangerous vehicle on roads with a steep and rocky surface/incline.Originally posted by beavan:have u sat in a 5 tonner when it moves off road?
maybe u shd try once. and then u'll realise why it's not feasible for scout missions.
It was bad enough in Tekong, therefore I can understand how some of the guys here feel when the 5-tonners hit outfield trg sites. -
Bad dinosaur! Bad bad dino! Down boy!Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:It's actually safer to lie flat down on the floor of the tonner... but yeah, getting your butt slammed (whatever that may mean) is never a good thing. Putting on the seat belt does not really help either... it helps to prevent you from falling out of the truck but it does not help to stop any of the pain of the ride.
Don't misquote me on getting my butt slammed. -
The SAF 5 tonners were never meant for ops other than troop lift. Bro Beavan was right that to say that the monster were not SUITABLE for Recce mission.Originally posted by beavan:have u sat in a 5 tonner when it moves off road?
maybe u shd try once. and then u'll realise why it's not feasible for scout missions.
As for the seat belt, it is actually now a chargable offence if you were caught for not putting it on. there were cases where servicemen fall off moving 5 tonners for not bucking up. I have personally witness one such incident. The 5 tonner was turning out of Guards avenue with a truck load of NSmen when the one sitting nearest to the tailboard simply falls onto the road as the vehicle was turning out onto upper changi road. Needless to say, there was a big hooha and more recently, a 5 tonner from XXX HQ overturned and troops behind were injureed cos they were also not bucked up. As a result, HD GSI sent out a nasty email to all units CO and commanders to enforce the bucking up of the troops deck seat belt. Failure to do so would render the unit commanders in deep shit.
Cheers!! -
Oh hell yeah... I've been in a five-tonner off-road.
Not a very good experience I must admit... I got tossed around pretty badly.
No injuries luckily... except for a scrambled sense of balance. I puked my guts out once the tonner was back on a level track.
Luckily I kept several small plastic bags in my field pack.