SAF truck OK for cargo but not safe for troops
-
What do you mean not many people know that the Abrams has weak spots? Anybody with some common sense will know that any MBT can be hurt, please do not assume the moment a person says the Abrams is a good MBT, that they are indicating it is made of Adamantium.Originally posted by snowfox_my:I am Sorry if you felt Ridiculed. It was not my intention. Please accept my apologies.
Not many people know that the M1 has weak areas, even on the frontal arc. The American are naturally sensitive of such information on the web. Been noticing, and still confirming, that the American are mounting ERA on their Frontal Arc, as part of their new TUSK upgrade.
Picture of Frontal Armour penetration, but by what? From the blur image, cannot tell definitely if it was a APFSD (which most likely be an American shot) or a ATGM.
Please accept my apologies.
Armour penetration or damage? And it looks like the Abrams in question survived whatever that was thrown at it.
No armour in invulnerable, but I find it dubious that the insurgents have anything that can penetrate the frontal turret armour of the HA variant of the Abrams, which has over 1000mm RHA versus CE, and tanks are in short supply for them to toss APFSDS rounds downrange.
It does not look like APFSDS or HEAT damage. An APFSDS entry crater will be small and not the dimple we see. The entry hole of HEAT is also small, as well as significant splattering pattern around the hole. And the paintwork would almost certainly be burnt.
My guess? It looks like damage caused by an EFP, which is becoming somewhat common in IEDs nowadays. The large and flat crater patter seems to account for the damage. -
double
-
In any case to answer the main question, why we picked Leo2 over Abrams (assuming we considered it), probably boils down to the fact the Germans were selling them on the cheap (get them fast) and the fuel efficency of the Leo2 is a lot easier on the logistics, as opposed to the turbine of the Abrams, which has its own strong points but is probably best suited for the Yanks to handle.
-
The L-55 gun is not suitable for our dense vegetation due to the length.
-
exactly my point!Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:In any case to answer the main question, why we picked Leo2 over Abrams (assuming we considered it), probably boils down to the fact the Germans were selling them on the cheap (get them fast) and the fuel efficency of the Leo2 is a lot easier on the logistics, as opposed to the turbine of the Abrams, which has its own strong points but is probably best suited for the Yanks to handle.
one of the top management guy in Singapore himself say singaporeans go to malaysia and become birds. "cheap cheap cheap cheap cheap cheap cheap cheap"
THE GAHMEN THEMSELVES ALSO WAT!!!!!
best suited for the yankees or not, we wont know, ever. unless we have and try before. -
snowfox, wat ATGM?
Air To Ground Missile?
do u have ANY idea how large a AGM-65 Maverick is?
and how much payload it has?
i will enlighten u.
length = 2.55m
diameter = 305mm
wingspan = 710mm
warhead:
AGM 65 A/B/D/H = 57kg
AGM 65 E/F/G/J/K = 135kg
57kg of high explosive (best case) = 1 small hole.
honestly, u ever seen wat only 10kg of TNT can do?
btw, they are priced at US$160,000 per piece.
fyi, AGM 65 series are compatible to be loaded onto the famous A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog". and the A-10 isnt known as a tank killer for its GAU-8/A gatling gun only, which btw, is only 30mm loaded with DU rounds with high ROF of 3900rpm, loaded with 1350 rounds.
IF, and i say IF that small little hole is caused by the Maverick, we MUST buy the M1A2 SEP! im serious. -
ATGM, anti-tank guided missile (ATGM).
When Milan was introduced to SAF, rather than spelled the name or refered to it in conversation, the term ATGM was used.
As to the new system, the System's name strucked, Spike, sound sexy and nice.
Air to Ground Missile, AGM.
Ps among the photos posted, was lead to believe that one of the M1 was knock out by Maverick system. -
great... coz im not very good with Army weapons, so pardon me for my wrong interpretation.Originally posted by snowfox_my:ATGM, anti-tank guided missile (ATGM).
When Milan was introduced to SAF, rather than spelled the name or refered to it in conversation, the term ATGM was used.
As to the new system, the System's name strucked, Spike, sound sexy and nice.
Air to Ground Missile, AGM.
Ps among the photos posted, was lead to believe that one of the M1 was knock out by Maverick system. -
Just my 2cents...whats lacking in the armoured 5 tonners is a .5cal. HMG up the front and back. When you have secured areas, they are tall enough and can be used as mobile watch towers. Having firing ports sometimes ain't enough..what is a 5.56/7.62's ability to do damage compared to a .5cal?
If I'm not mistaken, the US are actually mounting thick armour on their trucks where they become mobile gun nests. And the validity of armour against insurgents...welcome to the new world man. If it was 8-10yrs ago...when you see an M1 headed towards you, you will be afraid. Recoilless rifles can't do nuts to them, ATGM technology back then wasn't as developed. But in this day and age...like I've said many times before...there's absolutely no reason to fear tanks if you're a modern army or a insurgent. Tanks are built to be fists, crushing down and softening up the enemy of established armies. But insurgents? In the day, they are your peasants, at night they are your terrorists...its like back to Vietnam all over again. The internet has fueled the ability of those seeking to kill by providing information. The IEDs used...ingenious. So far if you ask me, I did say that the US despite their strength and superiority in technology...they are still learning to fight wars the new way. But heck...throw them against the Chinese, no doubt it will be a different results. -
1) Who will control the 0.5? If it's a RWS - cost maintainence + more training. In war zone i doubt the truck has more than the driver involved in ferrying supplies. You will have to also reduce space meant for tonnage and troops. Dont forget trucks are the most easily captured....can you imagine if that was used back against you?Originally posted by SpecOps87:Just my 2cents...whats lacking in the armoured 5 tonners is a .5cal. HMG up the front and back. When you have secured areas, they are tall enough and can be used as mobile watch towers. Having firing ports sometimes ain't enough..what is a 5.56/7.62's ability to do damage compared to a .5cal?
But heck...throw them against the Chinese, no doubt it will be a different results.
2) Why the chinese will be different? Oh wait, the Chinese have 10 million troops to learn their mistakes and change and test new tactics.......yeah i understand. AFAIK, the death of even one Chinese soldier is just a statistic and will be used as a political tool to their advantage. -
Hey No Worries, don't put it to heart.Originally posted by Ristar:great... coz im not very good with Army weapons, so pardon me for my wrong interpretation.
We are all human (I Think).
Felt strange, a thread about Armoured Trucks, become Tank Armour.
-
For the 0.5, I was thinking more of a pintle mount, ala Humvee style. Sometimes good ol' fashioned man controlled weapons are enough, no need for some hi-tech b/s. Its just like NASA, when they first found that its impossible to write in space with pens, they immediately launched into a programme spending millions just to developed a pressurized pen that allows their guys in space to write in space. While the Russkies simply used pencils.Originally posted by CM06:1) Who will control the 0.5? If it's a RWS - cost maintainence + more training. In war zone i doubt the truck has more than the driver involved in ferrying supplies. You will have to also reduce space meant for tonnage and troops. Dont forget trucks are the most easily captured....can you imagine if that was used back against you?
2) Why the chinese will be different? Oh wait, the Chinese have 10 million troops to learn their mistakes and change and test new tactics.......yeah i understand. AFAIK, the death of even one Chinese soldier is just a statistic and will be used as a political tool to their advantage.
And the Chinese are different because they are a mainstream army. What I'm comparing with is the conflict between the armies of two states. Not an army and that of a insurgent. Fighting between two groups with fixed identities.Nothing that will change/evolve overnight. -
Back to OP...
I think the author of that STForum post was envisioning MRAPS that the US and allied military are now acquiring for Iraq and Afghanistan to replace Humvees and Land Rovers. But the insurgents have a new weapon - EFP - which can penetrate unarmored MRAPs and even armoured vehicles like M1 and Challenger MBTs. These are supposedly manufactured in Iran or with Iranian help. See links below:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-05-31-mrap-insurgents_N.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6586401.stm
As I see it, modern warfare is evolution in action, each side comes up with something to counter the other side, so no one side can be invincible for long (unless the other side surrenders or is wiped out).
OWS takes up precious room in the 5 tonner, is expensive and requires trained crew as someone said earlier. Maybe a 0.5 MG or ST 40mm grenade launcher in front is the most we can expect for this vehicle. I presume these 5 tonners are not meant for frontline fighting, more for transporting large numbers/amounts of troops and supplies behind the frontline and only need basic armor for the rare firefight/ambush, or deployed in low intensity conflicts/peacekeeping missions with no threats from mines, hence Mindef thinks they have sufficient armour and guns for self defence. I just pray they don't run over a mine/IED when they are deployed. -
To sum it all up. SAF is trying to make the 5 tonner, safer not safe.
-
SPOT ON!!!Originally posted by LRRP:To sum it all up. SAF is trying to make the 5 tonner, safer not safe. -
Originally posted by Ristar:
100+ KG of HE in an IED can flip a 70 ton Abrams, and it has happened before. 250+ kg and you can totally demolish any AFV on the market today, as in the case of Merkavas in Lebanon and one unlucky Bradley which was literally blown to bits by a Mother of all IEDs (large pieces of the IFV was found 200 meters away from the blast). Fortunately, such massive IEDs are difficult to plant but when planted are prehaps the ultimate danger that no armour can save you from.
snowfox, wat ATGM?
Air To Ground Missile?
do u have ANY idea how large a AGM-65 Maverick is?
and how much payload it has?
i will enlighten u.
length = 2.55m
diameter = 305mm
wingspan = 710mm
warhead:
AGM 65 A/B/D/H = 57kg
AGM 65 E/F/G/J/K = 135kg
57kg of high explosive (best case) = 1 small hole.
honestly, u ever seen wat only [b]10kg of TNT can do?
btw, they are priced at US$160,000 per piece.
IF, and i say IF that small little hole is caused by the Maverick, we MUST buy the M1A2 SEP! im serious.[/b]
The protection package of the M1A2 SEP is pretty impressive, if not one of the most effective in the world today, but we all know no tank is invulnerable.
As it stands I don't know what damaged that M1 in the pic, but it does not seem to be an APFSDS, nor does it have the burn/splatter pattern of a HEAT warhead. It looked like some rather large, solid object hit it and made the hole, but not as narrow as an APFSDS... my guess is an EFP. -
some protections better than none.
not possible for every one in APC.
sg armoured truck from www.zaobao.com/ hard copy.
bullets proof wind screen.tyres can run for a distant if hit.
gun ports 3 on each sides plus 2 at rear. -
You can't fire aimed shots through the firing port cos there is no way to properly aim them.
The Bradley, for example, had special M-16's mounted into gun ports each side of the troop compartment. These weapons are loaded with tracers and that's the only way to aim them.
So on the 5-ton truck, a normal infantryman's rifle would need also to be loaded with tracers in order to aim fire effectively.
But as I mentioned before, the truck's not meant to be a fighting AFV. The firing ports are there - like the armour - to make an otherwise defenceless truck at least stand a fighting chance.
Our smart aleck author of that letter - Alfred - said the firing ports are a grenade hazard. Look at the picture and you will see that only a rifle barrel can fit through. -
I think mebbe he means the viewing port.Originally posted by chino65:You can't fire aimed shots through the firing port cos there is no way to properly aim them.
The Bradley, for example, had special M-16's mounted into gun ports each side of the troop compartment. These weapons are loaded with tracers and that's the only way to aim them.
So on the 5-ton truck, a normal infantryman's rifle would need also to be loaded with tracers in order to aim fire effectively.
But as I mentioned before, the truck's not meant to be a fighting AFV. The firing ports are there - like the armour - to make an otherwise defenceless truck at least stand a fighting chance.
Our smart aleck author of that letter - Alfred - said the firing ports are a grenade hazard. Look at the picture and you will see that only a rifle barrel can fit through. -
No, he meant the firing ports. The vision blocks are bullet proof glass like in a tank.Originally posted by SpecOps87:I think mebbe he means the viewing port. -
Ok...then tt's crazy.Originally posted by chino65:No, he meant the firing ports. The vision blocks are bullet proof glass like in a tank. -
then the enemy can come up with "letter bombs" and they can slip them through the firing slots like when you mail a letter.....
Our smart aleck author of that letter - Alfred - said the firing ports are a grenade hazard. Look at the picture and you will see that only a rifle barrel can fit through.
ok, nevermind.... lame joke
-
well personally althought its armor may not be particulary effective as some of you guys say, but as a man on the ground i think i would feel psychologically better if i had some sort of steel around me instead of canvas and some means to shoot back at the enemy instad of waiting to be gunned.
but of course things can be improved, but its a start -
To be real frank I think the firing ports are next to useless. Just my 5 cents worth. I really don't think you can hit ANYTHING. Maybe scare the enemy, yes, but that's about it.Originally posted by chino65:You can't fire aimed shots through the firing port cos there is no way to properly aim them.
The Bradley, for example, had special M-16's mounted into gun ports each side of the troop compartment. These weapons are loaded with tracers and that's the only way to aim them.
So on the 5-ton truck, a normal infantryman's rifle would need also to be loaded with tracers in order to aim fire effectively.
But as I mentioned before, the truck's not meant to be a fighting AFV. The firing ports are there - like the armour - to make an otherwise defenceless truck at least stand a fighting chance.
Our smart aleck author of that letter - Alfred - said the firing ports are a grenade hazard. Look at the picture and you will see that only a rifle barrel can fit through. -
Slightly O/T
Ristar, ATGM refers to Anti-Tank Guided Munitions. Generally referring to missiles like the Spike, Milan etc.
AGMs (Air to Ground Munitions) in your example, may not necessarily be used to bust tanks. The AGM-65 mavericks however, does that job well. However, these missiles can only armed on aircraft like our F-5 and F-16s.
Mavericks are really versatile. If you don't have a navigation pod for those moonless nights, just power up a maverick, and fly off your MFD!