Terrex - watsup?
-
I detect that some have this attitude
that “ if it ain’t made by STK, it ain’t good enough for me ……. “
Again, for those hard of hearing and of failing sight :-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAR 21
Weight with built in scope & without accessories 3.820 kg
Weight of LAD 0.160 kg
Weight of magazine 0.120 kg
Total weight 4.1 kg
G36
Weight with built in telescopic & red dot sight, 3.6 kg
scope & magazine
Weight with built in optical scope & magazine 3.3 kg
SCAR L 3.5 kg
Weight with & magazine
F2000
Weight with built in scope & magazine 3.6 kg
TAR-21
Weight with built in scope,LAD & magazine 2.8 kg
M16 A1
Weight w/o magazine 2.9 kg
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being emotional clouds one's thought processes as evidenced by posts which side track points raised about what can be done to improve STK weapons such as the standard issue SAR21. If one were to do a survey of NSmen & NSF on what can be done to improve the standard issue SAR21, I am quite sure that weight reduction will be high on the list. I am sure that this issue will be addressed in future for the betterment of our infantrymen.
Being so defensive about weight of the SAR 21 makes me wonder if some have our infantryman's interest at heart or they are just defending STK . The weight issue was highlighted because looking at the latest assault rifles available, one realises that much more can be done to reduce the weight of the SAR 21. As an infantryman myself, I wud rather lug a 3.5 kg weapon rather than a 4.1 kg weapon, wud'nt you ?
My comments to the Terrex cud easily apply to similar vehicles such as the VAB or the BTR 80 which are also vulnerable to RPGs, mines etc. These vehicles are at best battle taxis for strategic movement of troops on roads in low threat rear areas which is exactly what there are meant for. The Terrex was designed as an armored personnel carrier and not an AIFV. I will not advocate its use close to the front lines. It is unnecessary to expose troops ( 12 plus 2 in one large vehicle ) in such vehicles to highly effective threats such as RPGs. I repeat - I'd rather be in a Terrex than in a armored 5 tonner provided we have the Terrex in the first place. Better still, I'd rather be in a Bionix than in a Terrex, when faced with possible RPG threats, not that a Bionix cannot be penetrated by an RPG, but simply because it is a smaller target and is more well protected.
Grow up. -
erm to puke is to bring it to a whole new level of noobiness in tonner riding. i've never experienced any riding on a tonner that would make me puke.Originally posted by fudgester: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.
-
That'd be the SdKfz 234/4, the only model (8 wheeler SdKfz 234 hull) carrying the 75mm Pak 40 L/48 AT gun, the other models that carried 75mm guns carried the 75mm Kwk 37 L/24 which is essentially a low velocity infantry support gun. It must be pointed out though that the 75mm armed armoured cars were relatively uncommon, comprising only about 300 out of approx 4,000 armoured cars produced (all models). Most common main armament was still the 20mm autocannon. Most famous,IMO, was of course the SdKfz 234/2 "Puma" with the 50mm Kwk 39 L/60.Originally posted by moca: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.
In any case, the Pak 40 was not mounted on the SdKfz 234 for the purpose of allowing the recce force to engage the enemy. The decision to mount the Pak 40 (resulting in the SdKfz234/4) was the decision of Hitler himself ... supposedly as an emergency measure to increase the number of mobile anti-tank guns. Something the Germans were in dire need of in the late war period.
This meant that the SdKfz 234/4 was no longer a recce platform per se but more a Pakwagon, or mobile/SP AT gun. If anything, the conversion to mount the Pak 40 resulted in the SdKfz 234/4 losing the distinguishing feature of most SdKfz recce hulls, ie. the additional rear facing driver position. Useful for getting the hell out of dodge when you make contact, a vital ability for a recce platform
-
Different people have different tolerance levels when comes to balance.Originally posted by beavan:erm to puke is to bring it to a whole new level of noobiness in tonner riding. i've never experienced any riding on a tonner that would make me puke.
Personally, I get carsick easily.
So you might want to bear that in mind. -
Wah Glock… setting yourself up to get demolished again it it? I would recommend you move your mostly useless comments to the proper “Combat Rifles” thread, and not here if you intend to carry on.Originally posted by glock:I detect that some have this attitude
that “ if it ain’t made by STK, it ain’t good enough for me ……. “
Again, for those hard of hearing and of failing sight :-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAR 21
Weight with built in scope & without accessories 3.820 kg
Weight of LAD 0.160 kg
Weight of magazine 0.120 kg
Total weight 4.1 kg
G36
Weight with built in telescopic & red dot sight, 3.6 kg
scope & magazine
Weight with built in optical scope & magazine 3.3 kg
SCAR L 3.5 kg
Weight with & magazine
F2000
Weight with built in scope & magazine 3.6 kg
TAR-21
Weight with built in scope,LAD & magazine 2.8 kg
M16 A1
Weight w/o magazine 2.9 kg
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said, it’s nice of You to provide a partial list of firearms. Other posters have already responded to your “list” some time back, and hence instead of repeating them to rebutt you, why not let’s see what they posted?
LetÂ’s take a COMPLETE look at how the SAR stacks up, originally posted by moca:
By empty weight:SA-80 (L85A1): 4.13kg
Another tally of the numbers by kotay:
FN FNC : 4.06kg
SIG 550 : 4.05kg
Galil 5.56 : 3.95kg
SAR-21 : 3.82kg
Stery AUG : 3.80kg
FAMAS G2 : 3.80kg
FN F2000 : 3.60kg
HK G36 : 3.60kg
Type 89 (JPN) : 3.50kg
QBZ-85 : 3.40kg
AKS (AK-74) : 3.30kg
INSAS : 3.20kg
M16A1 : 2.89kg
TAR-21 : 2.80kgHow exactly did they fail wrt weight issues with the SAR-21?
So here we can see what Glock has done is basically picking and selecting his numbers and putting it all the “support” his case… but as I said it’s a matter of splitting hairs. If you take a look at the whole picture, the SAR-21 is a decently weighted weapon and there’s really no way about it unless one decides to do the hopscotch.
Comparing the weight of the SAR-21 with the M-16A1/S1 is a flawed comparison, the A1/S1 represents an older generation of assault rifle with flaws inherent in it's light weight design. If you want really to compare the SAR-21 with a modern M-16A1/S1 analogue, try the M-16A2/A4 (current US Army/USMC fielded) or the HK 416, supposedly HK's solution to the problems inherent to this 40-years old M-16 design.
(weight with 30rnd magazine)
M-16A2/A4 (20" barrel) ... 3.99 kg
HK 416 (14.5" barrel) ... 3.95 kg
.....
Which gives you
(weight with 30rnd magazine, LAD or equivalent, scope)
M-16A2/A4 (20" barrel) ... 4.49 kg
HK 416 (14.5" barrel) ... 4.45 kg
SAR-21 (20" barrel) ... 4.44 kg
Where has ST failed in delivering a lightweight design?
As has been mentioned, compared to other modern assault rifles such as G36, FAMAS, AUG, the SAR-21 is actually lighter once all features are considered.
In debate, such a pratice as Glock's is known as contexology, and this is a inherently dishonest pratice that is frowned upon.
This is not to mention that other features such as barrel length (which in another post was so important to him) and Kevlar plate (another feature), are quietly dropped from his equations when he tallies the score.
Need one say more?
Also, has he fought and trained with the SAR-21? Again he has no such experience with it except to make plenty of “criticisms” and “modifications”, dancing around the same old issues after it has long been settled.
In the end whoÂ’s the one splitting hairs?
WhoÂ’s the one that needs to grow up?Being so defensive about weight of the SAR 21 makes me wonder if some have our infantryman's interest at heart or they are just defending STK . The weight issue was highlighted because looking at the latest assault rifles available, one realises that much more can be done to reduce the weight of the SAR 21.
As I said, you take your examples from a very limited range and choose to ignore several important contexts in which the SAR-21 was designed and built:
Firstly, it was supposed to be a cheap system that could be issued across the board. This eliminated the possibility of using the extremely light but expensive and complex MARS sight on the TAR-21 that is scope and LAD together.
Secondly (and following the first point), it was designed
At the end of the day is the SAR-21 an unreasonably heavy weapon for a 5.56mm firearm? Going by all the numbers we have... certainly not. This desire to classify it as "overweight" seems to come from Glock thinking that any good weapon needs to be like his favoured G36C.
By his yardstick, most of the world and weapons makers are totting overweight weapons. I mean if that's the way he wants to see it, fine by me... but most grunts using these weapons would probably tell him to stuff it and head for a corner.
Also, what's more amazing is that he carries on his "debate" even when STK has created variants of the SAR-21 that would sastify even his whining. Why he contuines on his path even when many have repeatedly pointed it out to him is a mystery to us all, but I suspect massive incompetence in understanding basic english to be a large part of it.
If you want to be a badger or a dog and keep hounding the issue, at least be a smart one and dig the right log or bark up the proper tree. You should be making posts about why isn't the SAF using the other variants instead of barking about how STK should improve and make a weapon that they already have. -
As an infantryman myself, I wud rather lug a 3.5 kg weapon rather than a 4.1 kg weapon, wud'nt you ?
By your logic each and every army should be using the TAR-21 or G36C.
Any soldier wants to have the best tank, best rifle and the best of each and everything.
The thing is, in the context of our armed forces is this really possible? How attractive do you think the option of equipping a conscript force of greatly different skill levels and a high turnover rate with expensive and complex systems is to the top brass of the SAF?
Israel does not mind because they literally have the pressing need and a level of competence in their conscripts unheard off in the rest of the world. Hence equipping their troops with a relatively expensive system like the TAR-21 (the MARs sight alone is quite 1206) is a cost they are willing to foot. The Yanks run through the equipment like water, but they have the cash to foot the bill for such equipment... is it wise for us to follow this pratice?
Looking at it this way, it becomes clear why the SAF want the "simplified" package SAR to be the standard issue, as it is a good compromise of providing advanced capabilities at a cost effective level that could still be used by an army such as us.
Why do I say this is splitting hairs? Because an extra 0.5 or less of weight is not what wins or loses battles. What wins and loses battles is a weapon that is reliable, hard hitting, and most importantly sustainable for the army that uses it. It's one thing to have a nice, on-paper firearm that is really nice piecemeal but that you don't really have the means to support or worse, that your army does not make full use of.
So yeah, at the end of the day what's wrong with the SAR the way it is now? Any weapon in the world can be improved and it is no different, but it's another thing to jump on the issue as if our troopers are going to be killed because of some difference here and there. The energy and time is better spent on figuring how to fight a war better.
I do not seriously think the SAR's weight is a tatical disadvantage to our troopers at all. It is always nice to have a lighter weapon just as it would be cool to have a tank that is as armoured as an M1A2 but weights like the Bionix.
However all things considered pragmatically I hardly think on virtue of weight alone the SAR can be considered to be overweight, given the context it was designed and built in, who it's being used by, and just about everything else. I'm not the only grunt who lugged it outfield for one whole week and found no real issue with its weight versus the M-16S1 which we used previously, and found great use for it's capabilities. As I said, the weight issue is highly imaginary, and becoming more a case of mixings your units seeing 500g as 500kg.
It would need an urgent weight trim if we found ourselves unable to aim with it or jump through a window or do SOC because of it's weight (turns out SOC is a ton easier with it then the M-16). It would be an issue if like the SA80, weight was added because of inherent design flaws. If the weight is there for a good and proper reason then it's certainly worth lugging along. I do not mind the 20' barrel and kevlar plate, which is good insurance. Obviously if I could buy my own SAR I would go for the non standard versions and soup it up, add some and strip other features, but it's another question if this can (or ought to be done) in the standard, mass-of-scale version.
Truth is... Glock's case is highly like going to an exam and saying you prefer 10g pens to 15g pens because who wouldn't like a lighter pen to write marginally faster? Is it not a marginal issue that has been blown way out of proportion to Glock calling for SAR-21 recalls and immediate product improvement? -
My comments to the Terrex cud easily apply to similar vehicles such as the VAB or the BTR 80 which are also vulnerable to RPGs, mines etc. These vehicles are at best battle taxis for strategic movement of troops on roads in low threat rear areas which is exactly what there are meant for. The Terrex was designed as an armored personnel carrier and not an AIFV. I will not advocate its use close to the front lines. It is unnecessary to expose troops ( 12 plus 2 in one large vehicle ) in such vehicles to highly effective threats such as RPGs. I repeat - I'd rather be in a Terrex than in a armored 5 tonner provided we have the Terrex in the first place. Better still, I'd rather be in a Bionix than in a Terrex, when faced with possible RPG threats, not that a Bionix cannot be penetrated by an RPG, but simply because it is a smaller target and is more well protected.
So what is your point of making any of these comments when they are alreay well accepted and known long before you made them? It's like saying the F-15 would most probably be destroyed if you did a CFIT with it and hence it wasn't suited for CFIT. What worthless and redundant statements you have made!
Grow up.
And why are you getting your concepts mixed up? Did STK make the Terrex to do the Bionix's job or did they already have a very clear niche they intended to fill with it, already long well aware of the vulnerabilities and capabilities of such a unit? Do you seriously think they Terrex tatics involve engaging heavy threats and units or is it something else entirely? Have you been selectively oblivious to that?
So what's all your talk about it not being cost-effective and "going nowhere"? Unless you were trying to frame it in a role that it was obviously never intended to do in the first place? It would be cost-ineffective and "going nowhere" if it could not perform in it's specific role... do we have any indications of that?
In the light of all this... is not your entire position here mostly redundant speak and gutter that anybody with some common sense would know how to avoid? It's like saying one prefers to be in an F-15 then a B-52 because the B-52 is much more vulnerable in air combat.
The Terrex has its own nice and role to fill as do other units. It can only be judged a failure if it cannot do its intended job. -
I detect that some have this attitude
that “ if it ain’t made by STK, it ain’t good enough for me ……. “
Again, for those hard of hearing and of failing sight :-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAR 21
Weight with built in scope & without accessories 3.820 kg
Weight of LAD 0.160 kg
Weight of magazine 0.120 kg
Total weight 4.1 kg
G36
Weight with built in telescopic & red dot sight, 3.6 kg
scope & magazine
Weight with built in optical scope & magazine 3.3 kg
SCAR L 3.5 kg
Weight with & magazine
F2000
Weight with built in scope & magazine 3.6 kg
TAR-21
Weight with built in scope,LAD & magazine 2.8 kg
M16 A1
Weight w/o magazine 2.9 kg
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being emotional does cloud one's thought processes as evidenced by posts which side track points raised about what can be done to improve STK weapons such as the standard issue SAR21. If one were to do a survey of NSmen & NSF on what can be done to improve the standard issue SAR21, I am quite sure that weight reduction will be high on the list. Being so defensive about weight of the SAR 21 makes me wonder if some have our infantryman's interest at heart or they are just defending STK for the sake of it. I am sure that STK themselves need real & critical feedback to improve their weapons. The weight issue was highlighted because looking at the latest assault rifles available, one realises that much more can be done to reduce the weight of the SAR 21. I am sure that this issue will be addressed in future for the betterment of our infantrymen. As an infantryman myself, I wud rather lug a 3.5 kg weapon rather than a 4.1 kg weapon, wud'nt you ?
My comments to the Terrex cud easily apply to similar vehicles such as the VAB or the BTR 80 which are also vulnerable to RPGs, mines etc. These vehicles are at best battle taxis for strategic movement of troops on roads in low threat rear areas which is exactly what there are meant for. The Terrex was designed as an armored personnel carrier and not an AIFV. I will not advocate its use close to the front lines. It is unnecessary to expose troops ( 12 plus 2 in one large vehicle ) in such vehicles to highly effective threats such as RPGs. I repeat – I ‘d rather be in a Terrex than in a armored 5 tonner provided the Terrex does come into service with the SAF. Better still, I’d rather be in a Bionix than in a Terrex when faced with a possible RPG threat, not because Bionix cannot be penetrated by a RPG, but simply because it is better protected and a smaller target. -
You double post for what? Does repeating fallacious arguments make them any more valid? More importantly, is your behaviour here really helping your case or making everyone here see you as a rather armchair critic and an immature and ignorant one at that?
If you want to troll, please do it somewhere else like Speakers Corner where you can fulfil your masochistic tendenciesÂ… but right here as you notice people are simply starting to ignore your comments and move on.
If you really come up with nothing new or even manage to answer any of the questions asked, please do not feel slighted if you are ignoredÂ… or think that double-posting is going to help things. I think people in here have the eyes to read all the arguments and see how worthless your case is, even if you repeated it a thousand times.
LetÂ’s look at some user comments on you:Like others have said, don't be an idiot. The Terrex is an AFV and not a mere troop transport. It can mount heavy guns which the tonner obviously cannot without compromising its protection.
Look all your comments about the Terrex are bordering on a lack of common sense of a degree which I have no idea where it comes from. Too big? Surely you have seen how big the Terrex's contemporaries, which are even larger or similar sized? Wheeled vehicles are more for policing and operating behind the lines instead of the frontline. Tonners, armoured or not are useless for the job as they cannot do policing and stuff. By your own token of reasoning, the US army shouldn't even have a Bradley since its "too large too what not.."[./quote]
But since you are in a habit of repeating stuff, let me help you along. I wonder why you have yet to fully justify the following statements (comments included):
[quote]
Who ever you are Mr Glock,
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.
Mr Glock, Please go and get yourself a life...
Cheers!!I think Terrex is going nowhere.
Going nowhere? How so? Is there a better way to fill the high mobility armoured role? What about the many other niche roles that wheeled APCs can fill? How is it within even an inch of “going nowhere”?
It is oversized and makes a nice target - large & under armored and carries lots of troopers who will be fried when it gets hit.The Terrex is probably suited only to transport troops in a low risk environment. The armored 5 ton truck would do a more cost effective job for this role.
Oversized? How so? Compared to its other wheeled counterparts?
It is just too big a target and worse still can probably standup to small arms fire. It will fry from a RPG hit.
The Terrex is 2.7m by 2.1m by 7m, which is actually more or less your typical size for a wheeled APC of its capacity.
In terms of profile, it is actually 60 cm shorter then the Bionix at 2.7m by 2.6m by 5.9m (due to a lack of a turret) and just 110 cm (the length of one M-16 plus bayonet) longer. So in the front profile it actually presents a smaller target then the BX? And from the side it’s only a rifle length longer… So how is it then a significantly “larger target?” tactically speaking?
If you ask me the size issue is a non-issue. If insurgents can hit a Hummer with an RPG, if you are in a Terrex or Bx is well within their skull level to hit. As I said itÂ’s apples and orangesÂ… the Terrex certainly isnÂ’t any more vulnerable to being hit due to its inherent size. ItÂ’s just another issue of you drawing up fictitious arguments from mostly imaginary position.
More importantly you but utterly failed to note the virtue of “speed as armour” as well. Mobility is also vital towards unit survival- the most common defence of soft-skinned convoys to an ambush is to simply pick up speed and run through it before the enemy has a chance to put up significant fire. If it is used in the environment it was meant to perform, the mobility of the Terrex (110kph) versus the Bx (70kph) goes a long way towards reducing its exposure time to enemy fire in the battlespace.
Actually, if anybody hasnÂ’t realizedÂ… we are simply rehashing the tracks-versus-wheels debate raged some time back by the yanksÂ… mostly in part thanks to Glock running about a position that is really no position to begin with. Any moderate monkey in this issue worth his salt already knows the capabilities and vulnerabilities of wheels versus tracks and how they were meant for their own various roles.
I don’t see what exactly Glock is trying to do here… except to prove yet again that he is of little common sense. He said the Terrex was “too big” compared to the Bx… running the numbers one discovers that isn’t the case at all (once again it’s only significantly bigger in his imagination). He said it was too vulnerable to RPGs… but the truth is unless you are in anything less then an MBT, RPGs are going to be your concern. So has he said anything new? I’m not too sure but he seems to be confirming a particular lack of intelligence.
And whatÂ’s more funny is that heÂ’s so adamant on saving costs but yet he thinks being able to carry 12 troops in an armoured space is a setback (due to vulnerability issues)Â… but at the very next instant thinks itÂ’s more cost-effective to lug a platoon worth in a modified tonner that provides marginal protection and mobility at best.
He also seems to be of this fallacious ideology that the SAF has enough Bxs going around to cart its entire complement of fighting infantrymenÂ… truth is not only is this not possibleÂ… this is also not ideal. Look at it big-picture, thereÂ’s more then enough of a niche for the Terrex to fill.
All that aside, letÂ’s hear it from what the grunts who actually seen the Terrex in action have to say: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...
At the end of the day, I must askÂ… what exactly is GlockÂ’s mission in here? Or is he fighting an unwinnable war for no cause that he sees it necessary to live in the imaginary? By all means live in your own fantasy world but donÂ’t be surprised if nobody wants to join in.
-
Is it so hard to understand, different vehicles, different roles.
Dynamic situations, dynamic roles required.
All the while the world is moving towards the idea of, "one common platform, multiple roles." Saves costs, and can provide the capabilities needed. The terrex is one of those. Thats all.
Its not a specialised AIFV, nor an MBT, so what for talk about them having to face ATGMS or RPGs.
Any rear echelon vehicle would probably be disabled by an RPG anyways, so why so harsh on the Terrex? -
But seriously, I hope they can up armour it abit and introduce an amphibious version of it, thus we can have something like an AAAV7-P SG version for 21DIV
-
It come with 2 hydrojets at the back, so it is certainly amphibious, but at what sea state,it was not specified.Originally posted by equlus84:But seriously, I hope they can up armour it abit and introduce an amphibious version of it, thus we can have something like an AAAV7-P SG version for 21DIV -
MR GLOCK!!Originally posted by glock:I detect that some have this attitude
that “ if it ain’t made by STK, it ain’t good enough for me ……. “
Again, for those hard of hearing and of failing sight :-
You are simply a pain in the ASS!!
please allow me who has limited knowledge to ask you some questions.
1) Do you hve ANY idea why does MINDEF chose to purchase the SAR21 over all the other better(as you have always insisted) rifles? Why waste the money and time when there are readily made ones available?
Ans:
Firstly, Decades ago, when STK decides to manufacturer the M16 under the designation of M16S1, do you know how much the governemnt has to pay the yankees? Also, after years of building the rifle locally, when Colt, the parent company of the M16 refuses to sell us parts of the M16S1, we are left with a readily available infra. Why waste the infra? Hence, the command decision from Higher HQ was to tasked ST to design and fabricate a weapon that we can build locally without having to pay for licensing and tax plus many whatever charges. Imagine one day our realtionship with which ever countries that supplies us with the rifle sours and they decide to end the supply, what are we left with? SAF's decision to purchase the SAR 21 was made after many rounds of discussion at the higher level and I can assure you that SAF DO NOT made decision for the sake of making them. even though there are times when SAF makes pocurement mistakes but those officers who were involoved have already been given the boot. Hence, when MINDEF decides to purchase the SAR21, has it ever occur to you how much money are we actually saving? I guess not cos all you have up your head is only muscles!!
Also, you have always insisted that there are no buyers for the SAR21 right ?
How do you know? By assumption? Let's us not forget that when you assume things, you are actually making an ASS out of U and ME!! Get it!! Don't assume things simply because you don't know what is going on behind close doors!!!
Let I have posteed in an earlier thread, Please go and get yourself a life by quielty bowing out of this forum before everbody starts to boycote you and your nonsense!! -
Anyway, the sar 21 comes with the kevlar plate that stops you from becoming part of House of the Dead. That is the main weight difference between the SAR21 and your favourite G36C.
After, modern arms are made from composite plastic to reduce the weight. Not so sure how good that is against a chamber explosion.
We make our own ammunition. Now THAT rocks. -
While SG Tyranosaurus and Glock work out their differences, can the others please stay out and not add fuel to the fire?
TERREX RDF ROLE
Anyway, my speculation is that if the SAF adopts the Terrex, it will be for the RDF. I think the Terrex is C-130 transportable without modification. So this will be the vehicle for those who needs to ge there first, and get there fast.
TERREX PDF ROLE
Also, before I disrupted and went overseas 11 years ago, they were trying out my PDF unit to being V-200 mounted. Without knowing any more details, I would say that someone must be examining advantages of a wheeled armoured carrier in the SAF.
So another possible role for Terrex is for a PDF unit mounted on wheel assets including tonners, Terrex, rovers etc. This PDF unit would be able to reinforce a trouble spot anywhere in SG quickly by road, and with relative quiet.
The Terrex will then be able to provide a limited AFV or IFV fire support role until the big boys (tanks, Bionix etc) arrive.
With the reality that battles would have to be fought on BUA, wheels is a good option.
TERREX ARMOURED RECCE ROLE
Traditionally in WW2, wheel armour were used for armoured recce. These guys kept mainlly to the roads or less challenging terrain and their main need was for speed and stealth.
(Anyone whom has heard a tank column on the road will know how noisy tracks can be.)
Obviously, Terrex armoured recce also means a limited offensive capability so that smaller targets may be engaged without calling for support.
A US M8 wheeled armoured car armed with a 37mm canon in WW2 came upon a Tiger on a country road in France. The Tiger had engine problem and was a lone straggler. The M8, with its quiet engine and wheels, crept up behind the Tiger and fired several 37mm shots into the Tiger's backside, destroying it.
WHEELS VS TRACKS IN SAF
There is so far no wheels vs tracks argument within the SAF, it seems. SAF is clearly still very much in favour of tracks, as can be seen by the number of NEW armoured track platforms SAF employs: Primus, Bionix, Leo 2, CET, ATTC...
SAF will use tracks where tracks are suitable, and wheels where wheels are suitable. I don't think SAF will replace all tracked platform with wheels like the US or Canadians are contemplating at some point.
The Israelis seemed to have completely excluded wheels as an option even after numberous battles in the urban settings of Lebanon etc. So I wonder if there is something they know that the rest of the world don't? -
There is so far no wheels vs tracks argument within the SAF, it seems. SAF is clearly still very much in favour of tracks, as can be seen by the number of NEW armoured track platforms SAF employs: Primus, Bionix, Leo 2, CET, ATTC...
High mobility is apparently not a big issue for the Israelis, as one can see their AFV designs tend to put a heavy emphasis on protection and firepower. If you have an emphasis on protection, wheels aren't going to be that attractive to you.
SAF will use tracks where tracks are suitable, and wheels where wheels are suitable. I don't think SAF will replace all tracked platform with wheels like the US or Canadians are contemplating at some point.
The Israelis seemed to have completely excluded wheels as an option even after numberous battles in the urban settings of Lebanon etc. So I wonder if there is something they know that the rest of the world don't?
Makes somewhat of sense for them, they have nowhere to go as they are often fighting on their own turf (or very near to it) and their army only goes as far as their tanks can. -
The first time they entered Labanon in 1982 they fought against the Syrians, the Lebanese Army and some Lebanese-based militias. These enemies had tanks. So it was understandable that IDF used tanks.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:High mobility is apparently not a big issue for the Israelis, as one can see their AFV designs tend to put a heavy emphasis on protection and firepower. If you have an emphasis on protection, wheels aren't going to be that attractive to you.
Makes somewhat of sense for them, they have nowhere to go as they are often fighting on their own turf (or very near to it) and their army only goes as far as their tanks can.
But recently they went in and encountered only resistance from Hamas with infantry AT weapons.
I must say that the IDF armour saved lives but it also limited the IDF's offensive abilities. They were most of the time just sitting ducks riding around grandly in convoys.
I think the IDF is sometimes a victim of its own success in repeating old tactics.
Even in 1982, their tactics of armoured battle groups meant heavy casualties when the Syrians emplyed tanks hunter units of commandos with RPG or Gazelle choppers.
The recent IDF advance into Lebanon cannot be viewed as a successful example. its only success I felt was limiting casualties. -
[quote]Originally posted by moca:
[b]While SG Tyranosaurus and Glock work out their differences, can the others please stay out and not add fuel to the fire?[quote]
Brother Moca, thanks for the reminder. Guess i was carried away to read of such idoitic comments made by you know who.
Anyway thaks for the advice and reminder. -
Hydro jet usually ~10-20km/h per hour and can go open water..Not sure if our terrex is as such.
Anyone got see the NEW amphibious vehicle by the USMC? It can go 30 KNOTS(not kidding i saw video title Firepower: Aphibious Assault or something like that) in open water. wah lao. I want that for rdf!
We must copy and make our own! -
Hohoho... as much as it would be cool... do we really have a force like the USMC that requires such a monster? The AAAV was designed exactly with the USMC in mind, chiong from their mother ships as fast as possible and land masses of troops... but after that you have to fight mostly on land with that thing.Originally posted by CM06:Anyone got see the NEW amphibious vehicle by the USMC? It can go 30 KNOTS(not kidding i saw video title Firepower: Aphibious Assault or something like that) in open water. wah lao. I want that for rdf!
We must copy and make our own! -
Exactly. Chiong along the *cough* coast...i mean waterbody without the support of LST/fastcraft. That would free up alot more resources to engage more varied strategy and punch further inland i mean afield. Fun leh.
-
Sounds cool... too bad we don't have as much cash as the Yanks.Originally posted by CM06:Exactly. Chiong along the *cough* coast...i mean waterbody without the support of LST/fastcraft. That would free up alot more resources to engage more varied strategy and punch further inland i mean afield. Fun leh. -
I think very long & repeated posts are a real pain the X$! too.
People who cannot express themselves well, unfortunately, resort to vulgarities - they just cannot find the right words to use. These same people also, sad to say , usually cannot follow a rational train of thought.
The lists given by Tyra and Taugay are simply flawed. They have conveniently chosen rifles which mainly predate the SAR 21. These rifles such as the Steyr AUG , FNC , SA 80 etc ( I suggest they use more ancient rifles for comparison next time - how about the Sturmgewehr 44 or M1 ? ) are NOT the new generation of rifles I mentioned and compared with - they are all in the heavy range. The new generation are lighter and have shorter barrels than the SAR 21 - somebody please help me with an explanation of why the new generation rifles all have barrels 15 to 18 in instead of the SAR21's 20 in - I have yet to recieve a rational explanation. Hence , the deliberate selection of modern rifles to compare with the SAR 21. And the M16 example was a comparison with what the SAF was using before the SAR 21.
Taugay shud check the weights he has given, I do not know his source, but I will be happy to loan him my collection of Janes & other material. It is a fact that the SAR 21 is heavy and I repeat and repeat and repeat that reducing the weight will make the SAR 21 a better rifle. -
The SAR21 may be heavy, but actual usage has proven it feels more balanced and weight allocation is more optimal than the M16.Originally posted by glock:I think very long & repeated posts are a real pain the X$! too.
People who cannot express themselves well, unfortunately, resort to vulgarities - they just cannot find the right words to use. These same people also, sad to say , usually cannot follow a rational train of thought.
The lists given by Tyra and Taugay are simply flawed. They have conveniently chosen rifles which mainly predate the SAR 21. These rifles such as the Steyr AUG , FNC , SA 80 etc ( I suggest they use more ancient rifles for comparison next time - how about the Sturmgewehr 44 or M1 ? ) are NOT the new generation of rifles I mentioned and compared with - they are all in the heavy range. The new generation are lighter and have shorter barrels than the SAR 21 - somebody please help me with an explanation of why the new generation rifles all have barrels 15 to 18 in instead of the SAR21's 20 in - I have yet to recieve a rational explanation. Hence , the deliberate selection of modern rifles to compare with the SAR 21. And the M16 example was a comparison with what the SAF was using before the SAR 21.
Taugay shud check the weights he has given, I do not know his source, but I will be happy to loan him my collection of Janes & other material. It is a fact that the SAR 21 is heavy and I repeat and repeat and repeat that reducing the weight will make the SAR 21 a better rifle.
I've handled every damned rifle in the SAF, and for ease of usage and weight distribution, the SAR 21 feels better. -
Firstly apologies to kotay for renaming him to Taugay - but recheck your numbers. Weight of SAR 21 must include weight of LAD and mag as these are standard on this rifle & then compare to the other modern rifles with standard equipment.
Why are people still defending the Terrex ? After all it was designed in Ireland. Maybe it is really cheaper to develop a wheeled battle taxi somewhere else.