Small Arms in SAF Section
-
The small arms in a SAF section shud be reviewed and improvements in the mix can be improved as follows : -
- replacement of 5.56 mm sharpshooter rifle with semi auto 7.62 mm
- illuminated 3X reflex scopes for all SAR21s ; variable 3 -> 6X for SAW & sharpshooter rifle
- p rails for all weapons
- Ultimax Mk IV or V with SAR21 mags
- manually refillable 50 to 100 round magazine for Ultimax
- thermal sight for at least one section weapon
- improved underbarrel grenade launcher with more lethal munitions ; firecontrol system for high first shot hit
- lighter weapons for all the above
- SIMON door breacher or similar
-
Hey Sepecat, I know you are active in small arms discussion threads 'round here!
So let’s see how we can view this question of small arms in the SAF. (Answers in bold)
- replacement of 5.56 mm sharpshooter rifle with semi auto 7.62 mm
First and foremost: having to supply a unit with more than 1 ammunition calibre type is a logistical burden. Secondly, it costs extra - something the SAF is not in the least willing to spend on (for reasons beyond me).
What we could possibly do is give the sharpshooter a better scope (windage, elevation, magnification etc.), a heavier barrel with a greater twist ratio to increase muzzle velocity and accuracy. For good measure, they might want to consider a bipod.
- illuminated 3X reflex scopes for all SAR21s ; variable 3 -> 6X for SAW & sharpshooter rifle
- p rails for all weapons
In these two things I shall have to concur wholeheartedly with you. No disrespect to the engineers behind the SAR 21 but having a laser aiming device? Seriously, if you ditched that and left us instead with a SAR 21 RIS and a cheap reflex optic – our combat proficiency would take on new heights at small costs. Small costs? Yes, you heard me – instead of having to build a housing compartment and install a LAD complete with its battery compartment, leaving us with SAR 21 RIS’ and mass purchased reflex optics and foregrips would not cost significantly more than the standard configuration at hand. Instead, the benefits of it would be a logarithmic rise in combat proficiency – as the USMC has experienced. Fine, so you say one should not rely on batteries to keep one’s weapon system operable. So let me ask you: why did the USMC and the IDF equip its operators in such manner? Furthermore, one could always use BUIS of some sort.
Having said that however, please note that magnifiable reflex sights are more high-end than we think. It has other excellent features all of which total up to be a costly option to add on one's battle rifle.
- Ultimax Mk IV or V with SAR21 mags
Whatever for sepecat? A Beta-C magazine or its equal would suffice yes?
- manually refillable 50 to 100 round magazine for Ultimax
As mentioned above, Beta-C mags (or its equal) are exactly what you are asking for here.
- thermal sight for at least one section weapon
Sepecat, (sigh) unfortunately, I wish all operators had a night vision sight or a better still; a thermal one - that's the whole point of adding an LAD with infra-red capabilities! I hear in NS for night-firing, reflective material is stuck onto the targets. Ask yourself - will any self-respecting combatant adhereing to the 3 principles of camouflage and concealment (Shadow, Shine and Sound) present himself such an easy target? But really, the cost of the thermals won't burn a hole in one's pocket - it'll burn your pants right off to equip every man with one (despite the fact they are mass purchased). But you're right, night fighting should be given more serious consideration by the SAF.
- improved underbarrel grenade launcher with more lethal munitions ; firecontrol system for high first shot hit
The first part of it is already feasible - we have those. Second part of it? The SAF is really not willing to spend to that extent - plain 'n simple.
- lighter weapons for all the above
You know what Sepecat? The world's arms manufacturers have been and are still trying to solve this problem to meet the challenges of the modern warfare. It is hardly as easy as it looks, to say the least.
- SIMON door breacher or similar
Cost once again is a limiting factor, Sepecat. We think a good measure of boot leather should suffice for most situations (excluding counter-terrorism). You have to realise that ultimately, the SAF isn't counting on us to save Singapore in a war. It relies heavily on high-end technology to even the odds - no matter what the DEFMIN says to the press.
The Russians in WW2 were outgunned, outnumbered and unprepared to resist the onslaught of the German sixth army - 1.5 million men I think - fought from Stalingrad to Berlin! That's from one capital to another! Their fighting spirit has even been noted by the Americans during the Cold War. Read the US Army Manual published on the Russian Spetsnaz and one of the things that stand out is their willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve victory - even if it meant certain death of the entire squad.
When all has been said and done, Sepecat, it is the operator's professional skill, valor (in every sense of the word - honor, courage, dedication, excellence, etc.) and love for God and country that will stand in the midst of war.
-
PS: If you ever want to know how to modify a SAR 21 when you go into NS or if you ever should have to go to war with it, let me know and I'll email you a list of equipment to consider - affordable, feasible, above all - not illegal!
Leave your email address and your questions. Hope this helped!
-
Originally posted by Praetor-fenix:
Hey Sepecat, I know you are active in small arms discussion threads 'round here!
So let’s see how we can view this question of small arms in the SAF. (Answers in bold)
- replacement of 5.56 mm sharpshooter rifle with semi auto 7.62 mm
First and foremost: having to supply a unit with more than 1 ammunition calibre type is a logistical burden. Secondly, it costs extra - something the SAF is not in the least willing to spend on (for reasons beyond me).
What we could possibly do is give the sharpshooter a better scope (windage, elevation, magnification etc.), a heavier barrel with a greater twist ratio to increase muzzle velocity and accuracy. For good measure, they might want to consider a bipod.
- illuminated 3X reflex scopes for all SAR21s ; variable 3 -> 6X for SAW & sharpshooter rifle
- p rails for all weapons
In these two things I shall have to concur wholeheartedly with you. No disrespect to the engineers behind the SAR 21 but having a laser aiming device? Seriously, if you ditched that and left us instead with a SAR 21 RIS and a cheap reflex optic – our combat proficiency would take on new heights at small costs. Small costs? Yes, you heard me – instead of having to build a housing compartment and install a LAD complete with its battery compartment, leaving us with SAR 21 RIS’ and mass purchased reflex optics and foregrips would not cost significantly more than the standard configuration at hand. Instead, the benefits of it would be a logarithmic rise in combat proficiency – as the USMC has experienced. Fine, so you say one should not rely on batteries to keep one’s weapon system operable. So let me ask you: why did the USMC and the IDF equip its operators in such manner? Furthermore, one could always use BUIS of some sort.
Having said that however, please note that magnifiable reflex sights are more high-end than we think. It has other excellent features all of which total up to be a costly option to add on one's battle rifle.
- Ultimax Mk IV or V with SAR21 mags
Whatever for sepecat? A Beta-C magazine or its equal would suffice yes?
- manually refillable 50 to 100 round magazine for Ultimax
As mentioned above, Beta-C mags (or its equal) are exactly what you are asking for here.
- thermal sight for at least one section weapon
Sepecat, (sigh) unfortunately, I wish all operators had a night vision sight or a better still; a thermal one - that's the whole point of adding an LAD with infra-red capabilities! I hear in NS for night-firing, reflective material is stuck onto the targets. Ask yourself - will any self-respecting combatant adhereing to the 3 principles of camouflage and concealment (Shadow, Shine and Sound) present himself such an easy target? But really, the cost of the thermals won't burn a hole in one's pocket - it'll burn your pants right off to equip every man with one (despite the fact they are mass purchased). But you're right, night fighting should be given more serious consideration by the SAF.
- improved underbarrel grenade launcher with more lethal munitions ; firecontrol system for high first shot hit
The first part of it is already feasible - we have those. Second part of it? The SAF is really not willing to spend to that extent - plain 'n simple.
- lighter weapons for all the above
You know what Sepecat? The world's arms manufacturers have been and are still trying to solve this problem to meet the challenges of the modern warfare. It is hardly as easy as it looks, to say the least.
- SIMON door breacher or similar
Cost once again is a limiting factor, Sepecat. We think a good measure of boot leather should suffice for most situations (excluding counter-terrorism). You have to realise that ultimately, the SAF isn't counting on us to save Singapore in a war. It relies heavily on high-end technology to even the odds - no matter what the DEFMIN says to the press.
The Russians in WW2 were outgunned, outnumbered and unprepared to resist the onslaught of the German sixth army - 1.5 million men I think - fought from Stalingrad to Berlin! That's from one capital to another! Their fighting spirit has even been noted by the Americans during the Cold War. Read the US Army Manual published on the Russian Spetsnaz and one of the things that stand out is their willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve victory - even if it meant certain death of the entire squad.
When all has been said and done, Sepecat, it is the operator's professional skill, valor (in every sense of the word - honor, courage, dedication, excellence, etc.) and love for God and country that will stand in the midst of war.
For the most of the reply, logic eludes me.
SAF does already equip units with more than one ammunition type. Just not all... I think the cost of the semi-auto 7.62 would be more than equipping them with the bullets.
From what I understand, twist ratio and stuff like that aren't just randomly increased or decreased. The twist and its effectiveness depends on the type of 5.56 used.
Most of the remaining arguments revolve around "too costly" which I largely agree with. The Air Force has more important and costlier stuff to purchase. So the Army would have to make do with vanilla Sar-21/LAD for now.
The final 2 paragraphs are appeals to emotions which can be disregarded.
-
Hey Moderator Shotgun,
For the most of the reply, logic eludes me. and Most of the remaining arguments revolve around "too costly" which I largely agree with. - are my comments sound or otherwise?
SAF does already equip units with more than one ammunition type. Just not all... I think the cost of the semi-auto 7.62 would be more than equipping them with the bullets.
I'm not very certain but as far as I know, only the Steyr bolt-action sniper rifles we use are chambered in 7.62mm (excluding the FN FALs we purchased when we first began).
From what I understand, twist ratio and stuff like that aren't just randomly increased or decreased.
I believe Zalman Sheves has done it with the Tavor 21 (one of its selling points is its increase in muzzle velocity due to an increased twist ratio). Heavier barrels are common in many rifles designs such as the Steyr AUG H-Bar, the M16 H-Bar and even the modern FN SCAR. A heavier barrel stabilizes the barrel's vibrations when the round exits the muzzle, thus improving barrel harmonics and accuracy.
The twist and its effectiveness depends on the type of 5.56 used.
I was referring to the 5.56x45mm cartridge. Furthermore, to the extent of my knowledge, I believe that the only 5.56mm cartridges in manufacture are .223 Remington and 5.56x45mm NATO.
The final 2 paragraphs are appeals to emotions which can be disregarded.
I apologise, allow me to rephrase my stand:
When all is said and done, it is the operator's professional skill and level of training - combat and survival, what it takes to fight and win - that will stand one in good stead in a harsh combat environment.
"We do not rise to the occasion. We fall back to the level of our training"
-
In regards to the use of P-rails for the SAR-21, the weapon was designed in 1996, at the time where the use of modular mounting systems had yet to become widespread in militaries around the world. The SAF wanted a standardized weapon that could be distributed to each and every grunt without too much fuss, but yet have some bells and whistles. The P-Rail variants were mainly for export.
This was before the Army 21 vision, which was before the 3G SAF transformation. Of course the reality of small arms in the 3G SAF has changed significantly. The requirements of the 3G SAF means that the need for modular flexibility has arisen. Hence, I'd expect if the SAF was serious to transiting to a network centric force they would naturally transit towards using SAR-21 variants with modular mounting systems.
Personally, I feel the SAR-21 would be a lot better if it was given modular flexibility. The current sights on the basic variant are adequate, but could be a lot better. Even if the government does not want to spend to give us red dots and ACOGs, they can still retain the option to use the cheapo sight on P-rail. But of course, such decisions were made like in 1996, and they have to run through the production contracts and what have you not. -
Originally posted by Praetor-fenix:
Logic eludes me in why you concluded that it was expensive for the SAF to issue to ammunition types, when the cost of the 7.62 weapon itself would have cost significantly more. Just an odd conclusion there.
The other odd part was your Russian-German example. The Russians were outnumbered, and then they came back with 1.5million men? I think the Russians weren't really that outnumbered in the first place... just not as prepared as they ought to be. The Russians did outnumber the Germans on the way back I think...
Its not just the old Steyr 69s, we also use 7.62 x 51mm NATO rounds for our GPMGs. So yes, we do have quite a fair quantity of those.
The 5.56 x 45mms themselves come in different types meant for different barrel twists. The M193 ball works with the 1:12" barrel twists (ie M16A1), and the M855 with the 1:7" barrel twists (ie M16A2/A3/A4).
An M855 shot out of an M16A1 would not be sufficiently stabilized, while accuracy may be degrade when the M193 is shot out of 1:7" barrels. But i suppose a mild increment in twist might be acceptable. Still that would mean a new version of hbar Sar-21.
No offense when I said the rest of it was appeals to emotion. Reason was that the TS was really talking about "technical" improvements and all those "unit, corps, God, Country" bits weren't really in place.
-
Hey SgTyrannosaur,
I have to concur with you that the SAF did have good reason to use the current sighting systems - not simply because the SAF is ignorant of better options or is too ass-poor to give them to us.
Furthermore, if one thinks about it, a1.5x scope isn't too bad at all. While it isn't optimum for close quarter rapid engagements (as compared to reflex sights), it does allow us to engage targets pretty well outside a room clearance situation.
Hey Moderator Shotgun,
Logic eludes me in why you concluded that it was expensive for the SAF to issue to ammunition types, when the cost of the 7.62 weapon itself would have cost significantly more. Just an odd conclusion there.
Reviewing my previous comments, I have to concur. What I really meant was that to purchase 7.62mm weapon systems (inevitably complete with ammo supply) would prove exceedingly costly for the SAF. And I still cannot very if our GPMGs use 7.62mm, a likely possiblility but probably phased out though (in favor of using a standard caliber - 5.56x45mm).
The other odd part was your Russian-German example. The Russians were outnumbered, and then they came back with 1.5million men? I think the Russians weren't really that outnumbered in the first place... just not as prepared as they ought to be. The Russians did outnumber the Germans on the way back I think...
Haha! I'm terribly sorry for not including proper details! Maybe to have a more concrete understanding of that segment of WW2, you might want to read Tim McNeese's Stalingrad - Sieges that changed the world (available at local libraries). But seriously, the Russians pioneered urban warfare in the 20th century and the War earned them a fearsome fighting reputation among the West (see spetsnaz books and US Army publications)
Its not just the old Steyr 69s, we also use 7.62 x 51mm NATO rounds for our GPMGs. So yes, we do have quite a fair quantity of those.
Like I mentioned earlier I am hazy about the GPMG - it may have been phased out in favour of a standard 5.56 mm caliber.
The 5.56 x 45mms themselves come in different types meant for different barrel twists. The M193 ball works with the 1:12" barrel twists (ie M16A1), and the M855 with the 1:7" barrel twists (ie M16A2/A3/A4).
I understand now what you meant.
An M855 shot out of an M16A1 would not be sufficiently stabilized, while accuracy may be degrade when the M193 is shot out of 1:7" barrels. But i suppose a mild increment in twist might be acceptable. Still that would mean a new version of hbar Sar-21.
Exactly what I am suggesting.
No offense when I said the rest of it was appeals to emotion. Reason was that the TS was really talking about "technical" improvements and all those "unit, corps, God, Country" bits weren't really in place.
Not at all Shotgun, you were quite right. However, they might find more place on the ground rather than in a strictly technical discussion (see US Army Field manual on Psychological ops)
-
SAF spent $100 million on AMCS. Cost is not an issue for SAF if
the capability is deemed necessary. But, personally I am not convinced of the reliability and effectiveness of such a system – this shud be discussed in another thread.
As an infantryman like most of us , I think more shud be spent to correct major shortfalls in SAF section small arms capabilities, specifically & especially night sight equipment. We do not even have a basic plain vanilla one.
We have taken one step forward with the 1.5X sight on the SAR 21 and taken one step backward when a basic night sight is non existent – even the old SAF M16 had a basic tritium front post sight.
Lack of P rails & night sight and weight are major shortfalls for SAR21.
Inability of Ultimax to use SAR21 standard magazines is a another major shortfall. Lack of field refillable drum mags such as C mags for Ultimax limits
the capabilities of a good weapon. Lack of telescopic sights means that the
full range of Ultimax 100 is not exploited.
Having one 7.62 semi auto sharpshooter rifle will increase reach and firepower of the SAF section. Having 2 different calibers is not a major issue unless one wants to use match ammo - but then a sharpshooter fires mainly single deliberate shots and requires less ammo in the first place. GPMGs at company level already exist and the ammo is already there. In Afghanistan and Iraq , the lesson learnt is that a 7.62 weapon is sorely needed in many situations at squad / section level.
It is also less important if the 5.56 ammo is M855 or M193. What is more critical is that hits are achieved and modern sights coupled with good and intensive training make it possible. It scares the hell out of an enemy who knows that a normal infantryman shoots straight and makes consistent hits in all scenarios. Thats why US Marines & other similar well equipped and trained forces are well respected by their enemies.
-
Hey Sepecat,
SAF spent $100 million on AMCS. Cost is not an issue for SAF if
the capability is deemed necessary.
Yep, you are right to a large extent; if the SAF wants it done, it will get it done with the DEFMIN's approval. However, do bear in mind our other expenses (1 - Education, etc.) which require much more attention presently as they are quite outdated in my view.
But, personally I am not convinced of the reliability and effectiveness of such a system – this shud be discussed in another thread.
This is in fact being debated hotly by top militaries all around the world. Personally, I endorse the move in general. However I disagree with the SAF on some things which I shall discuss below.
As an infantryman like most of us , I think more shud be spent to correct major shortfalls in SAF section small arms capabilities, specifically & especially night sight equipment. We do not even have a basic plain vanilla one.
Absolutely! As I have mentioned in previous comments, I have heard that we train our soldiers for night shooting by pasting reflective material on the targets, then telling them to use their LAD to engage their targets throught the scope. This I believe is extremely unrealistic training. Furthermore, our soldiers receive far too little range time to be of much help - I shall likewise discuss this further below.
We have taken one step forward with the 1.5X sight on the SAR 21 and taken one step backward when a basic night sight is non existent – even the old SAF M16 had a basic tritium front post sight.
Well a simple way of improving the current version is to use a tritium scope.
Lack of P rails & night sight and weight are major shortfalls for SAR21.
Once again refer to my first comments in the thread about the LAD and Picatinny rails. Weight management is excellent in terms of placing the CG above the firing hand. Weight overall is pretty crappy for current bullpup ARs, specifically those made by Microtech Inc.
Inability of Ultimax to use SAR21 standard magazines is a another major shortfall. Lack of field refillable drum mags such as C mags for Ultimax limits
the capabilities of a good weapon.
Right you are - BTW, Betaco does sell speed reloaders for such purposes. The SAF I feel has grossly neglected its small arms sector after the intial sucess of the SAR 21.
Lack of telescopic sights means that the
full range of Ultimax 100 is not exploited.
True, but they are probably given to special ops. The SAF isn't counting on us to win wars.
Having one 7.62 semi auto sharpshooter rifle will increase reach and firepower of the SAF section. Having 2 different calibers is not a major issue unless one wants to use match ammo - but then a sharpshooter fires mainly single deliberate shots and requires less ammo in the first place. GPMGs at company level already exist and the ammo is already there. In Afghanistan and Iraq , the lesson learnt is that a 7.62 weapon is sorely needed in many situations at squad / section level.
I concur wholly. However, the SAF isn't going to spend more time, effort and money to train and equip Designated Marksmen. Sad but true.
It is also less important if the 5.56 ammo is M855 or M193. What is more critical is that hits are achieved and modern sights coupled with good and intensive training make it possible.
Yes, I believe strongly that the SAF does not make an effort to train our soldiers to a level of combat proficiency. For instance, we train with far less than 300 rounds per operator - ridiculous if you observe weapons training courses.
Our "soldiers" train in the prone shooting position, the most stable position with the lowest CG. In war, I doubt most of your shots will be fired from a prone position, seriously.
Our "soldiers" train to fire their rifles comfortably as if for leisure. Their heart rate is not up, ther blood is not pumping, their adrenaline isn't rushing. One should be trained to engage multiple targets from all 3 firing positions, running to engage, runnung while engaging, all under time constraint, in full dress complete with kitted out LBV.
Our "soldiers" are not trained to reload under stress. Reloading should be a conditioned reflex.
Shooting accurately under duress requires much practice, repetition and perfection of marksmanship. What our "soldiers" undergo is quite ludicrous.
It scares the hell out of an enemy who knows that a normal infantryman shoots straight and makes consistent hits in all scenarios. Thats why US Marines & other similar well equipped and trained forces are well respected by their enemies.
Absolutely correct! Only hits count, misses don't. here is the US rifleman's creed for one to ponder.
This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I master my life.
My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless.
I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will....
My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...
My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weakness, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel.
I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...
Before God I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country.
We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.
So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but Peace.
-
o Hey Sepecat,
As an infantryman like most of us , I think more shud be spent to correct major shortfalls in SAF section small arms capabilities, specifically & especially night sight equipment. We do not even have a basic plain vanilla one.
Absolutely! As I have mentioned in previous comments, I have heard that we train our soldiers for night shooting by pasting reflective material on the targets, then telling them to use their LAD to engage their targets throught the scope. This I believe is extremely unrealistic training. Furthermore, our soldiers receive far too little range time to be of much help - I shall likewise discuss this further below.
If true, then it must be the most ludicrous night aiming technique I have heard of for conventional night fighting. Anyone, please tell me of any other army in the world which teaches this to their infantryman for conventional warfare.
This technique was probably dreamed up by an armchair
bureaucrat .
We have taken one step forward with the 1.5X sight on the SAR 21 and taken one step backward when a basic night sight is non existent – even the old SAF M16 had a basic tritium front post sight.
Well a simple way of improving the current version is to use a tritium scope.
Yes, if you have a P rail to attach it on in the first place.
Lack of P rails & night sight and weight are major shortfalls for SAR21.
Once again refer to my first comments in the thread about the LAD and Picatinny rails. Weight management is excellent in terms of placing the CG above the firing hand. Weight overall is pretty crappy for current bullpup ARs, specifically those made by Microtech Inc.
No argument that SAR21 is nicely balanced. But its weight is horrendous compared to other modern combat rifles.
Inability of Ultimax to use SAR21 standard magazines is a another major shortfall. Lack of field refillable drum mags such as C mags for Ultimax limits
the capabilities of a good weapon.
Right you are - BTW, Betaco does sell speed reloaders for such purposes. The SAF I feel has grossly neglected its small arms sector after the intial sucess of the SAR 21.
Yes, but Ultimax 100 round drum mags can only be reloaded in the factory. They can neither be hand loaded nor loaded with any field device.
Lack of telescopic sights means that the
full range of Ultimax 100 is not exploited.
True, but they are probably given to special ops. The SAF isn't counting on us to win wars.
History has shown again and again that the determined, resourceful, skilled and brave infantryman can win battles and wars against overwhelming odds and technology.
The SAF has got to go back to basics where infantrying / soldiering is concerned. Well and good to have technology which gives you the unfair advantage. But when the technology is foiled by countermeasures or the fog of war , then we need to count on the rifleman to win the battles.
Having one 7.62 semi auto sharpshooter rifle will increase reach and firepower of the SAF section. Having 2 different calibers is not a major issue unless one wants to use match ammo - but then a sharpshooter fires mainly single deliberate shots and requires less ammo in the first place. GPMGs at company level already exist and the ammo is already there. In Afghanistan and Iraq , the lesson learnt is that a 7.62 weapon is sorely needed in many situations at squad / section level.
I concur wholly. However, the SAF isn't going to spend more time, effort and money to train and equip Designated Marksmen. Sad but true.
Sigh …………………………..
It is also less important if the 5.56 ammo is M855 or M193. What is more critical is that hits are achieved and modern sights coupled with good and intensive training make it possible.
Yes, I believe strongly that the SAF does not make an effort to train our soldiers to a level of combat proficiency. For instance, we train with far less than 300 rounds per operator - ridiculous if you observe weapons training courses.
Our "soldiers" train in the prone shooting position, the most stable position with the lowest CG. In war, I doubt most of your shots will be fired from a prone position, seriously.
Our "soldiers" train to fire their rifles comfortably as if for leisure. Their heart rate is not up, ther blood is not pumping, their adrenaline isn't rushing. One should be trained to engage multiple targets from all 3 firing positions, running to engage, runnung while engaging, all under time constraint, in full dress complete with kitted out LBV.
Our "soldiers" are not trained to reload under stress. Reloading should be a conditioned reflex.
Shooting accurately under duress requires much practice, repetition and perfection of marksmanship. What our "soldiers" undergo is quite ludicrous.
The US Army now qualifies its shooters while they are wearing body armor , full load of ammo / other equipment and shooting from realistic positions under stress and other realistic conditions.
In reality, the enemy present fleeting targets & our marksmanship training needs to reflect this. No more unrealistic target practice please. War is not a video arcade game.
It scares the hell out of an enemy who knows that a normal infantryman shoots straight and makes consistent hits in all scenarios. Thats why US Marines & other similar well equipped and trained forces are well respected by their enemies.
Absolutely correct! Only hits count, misses don't. here is the US rifleman's creed for one to ponder.
Hurray to the rifleman ! - only the ones that consistently hit
their mark that is
-
o Hey Sepecat,
As an infantryman like most of us , I think more shud be spent to correct major shortfalls in SAF section small arms capabilities, specifically & especially night sight equipment. We do not even have a basic plain vanilla one.
Absolutely! As I have mentioned in previous comments, I have heard that we train our soldiers for night shooting by pasting reflective material on the targets, then telling them to use their LAD to engage their targets throught the scope. This I believe is extremely unrealistic training. Furthermore, our soldiers receive far too little range time to be of much help - I shall likewise discuss this further below.
If true, then it must be the most ludicrous night aiming technique I have heard of for conventional night fighting. Anyone, please tell me of any other army in the world which teaches this to their infantryman for conventional warfare.
This technique was probably dreamed up by an armchair
bureaucrat .
We have taken one step forward with the 1.5X sight on the SAR 21 and taken one step backward when a basic night sight is non existent – even the old SAF M16 had a basic tritium front post sight.
Well a simple way of improving the current version is to use a tritium scope.
Yes, if you have a P rail to attach it on in the first place.
Lack of P rails & night sight and weight are major shortfalls for SAR21.
Once again refer to my first comments in the thread about the LAD and Picatinny rails. Weight management is excellent in terms of placing the CG above the firing hand. Weight overall is pretty crappy for current bullpup ARs, specifically those made by Microtech Inc.
No argument that SAR21 is nicely balanced. But its weight is horrendous compared to other modern combat rifles.
Inability of Ultimax to use SAR21 standard magazines is a another major shortfall. Lack of field refillable drum mags such as C mags for Ultimax limits
the capabilities of a good weapon.
Right you are - BTW, Betaco does sell speed reloaders for such purposes. The SAF I feel has grossly neglected its small arms sector after the intial sucess of the SAR 21.
Yes, but Ultimax 100 round drum mags can only be reloaded in the factory. They can neither be hand loaded nor loaded with any field device.
Lack of telescopic sights means that the
full range of Ultimax 100 is not exploited.
True, but they are probably given to special ops. The SAF isn't counting on us to win wars.
History has shown again and again that the determined, resourceful, skilled and brave infantryman can win battles and wars against overwhelming odds and technology.
The SAF has got to go back to basics where infantrying / soldiering is concerned. Well and good to have technology which gives you the unfair advantage. But when the technology is foiled by countermeasures or the fog of war , then we need to count on the rifleman to win the battles.
Having one 7.62 semi auto sharpshooter rifle will increase reach and firepower of the SAF section. Having 2 different calibers is not a major issue unless one wants to use match ammo - but then a sharpshooter fires mainly single deliberate shots and requires less ammo in the first place. GPMGs at company level already exist and the ammo is already there. In Afghanistan and Iraq , the lesson learnt is that a 7.62 weapon is sorely needed in many situations at squad / section level.
I concur wholly. However, the SAF isn't going to spend more time, effort and money to train and equip Designated Marksmen. Sad but true.
Sigh …………………………..
It is also less important if the 5.56 ammo is M855 or M193. What is more critical is that hits are achieved and modern sights coupled with good and intensive training make it possible.
Yes, I believe strongly that the SAF does not make an effort to train our soldiers to a level of combat proficiency. For instance, we train with far less than 300 rounds per operator - ridiculous if you observe weapons training courses.
Our "soldiers" train in the prone shooting position, the most stable position with the lowest CG. In war, I doubt most of your shots will be fired from a prone position, seriously.
Our "soldiers" train to fire their rifles comfortably as if for leisure. Their heart rate is not up, ther blood is not pumping, their adrenaline isn't rushing. One should be trained to engage multiple targets from all 3 firing positions, running to engage, runnung while engaging, all under time constraint, in full dress complete with kitted out LBV.
Our "soldiers" are not trained to reload under stress. Reloading should be a conditioned reflex.
Shooting accurately under duress requires much practice, repetition and perfection of marksmanship. What our "soldiers" undergo is quite ludicrous.
The US Army now qualifies its shooters while they are wearing body armor , full load of ammo / other equipment and shooting from realistic positions under stress and other realistic conditions.
In reality, the enemy present fleeting targets & our marksmanship training needs to reflect this. No more unrealistic target practice please. War is not a video arcade game.
It scares the hell out of an enemy who knows that a normal infantryman shoots straight and makes consistent hits in all scenarios. Thats why US Marines & other similar well equipped and trained forces are well respected by their enemies.
Absolutely correct! Only hits count, misses don't. here is the US rifleman's creed for one to ponder.
Hurray to the rifleman ! - only the ones that consistently hit
their mark that is
-
True the 7.62X51mm has more stopping power however, in close in assymetrical warfare, you rarely shoots beyond 200m and the amount of ammo needed to put down range to keep the heads of the enemy down is a lot more. So, the more rounds a soldier can carry, the better.
This is the main reason NATO and US main small arms main ammo is the M855 or 5.56X45mm SS109 steel penetrator.
The reason for deployment of the Minimi and the M4 is simple, for the weight of 180 rounds of M80, a soldier can carry rounds of SS109
-
I agree that 5.56 mm is good for the shorter ranges <400 m. The 5.56 LMGs are very good to have when assaulting positions. But 7.62s if available as LMGs are very much more effective in laying down fire for suppression and also in stopping power.
Even urban combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan there are calls by troopers to have a longer reach - eg old M14s rifles have been taken out from storage and fielded. On many occassions , the longer ranged rifles are needed to take out targets a few blocks away where they are just beyond the limits of the 5.56. Also the M240s or GPMGs have proven invaluable in providing harder hitting power than 5.56 LMGs.
Therefore there has been a lot of interest in weapons such as the HK417 and lighter weight GPMGs such as M60E4 and the 7.62 Minimi.
-
What possibly could the arguments about 'Costs" be centered on ?
Costs in terms of logistic delivery to the front lines, or the costs to stock up ?
As matters stand, in terms of bullets used - not including the pistols - the SAF has the 5.56mm for the AR-15s and SAR-21; and 7.62mm needed for the GPMG guns that are used as Company Support Weapon - and which are also mounted on Armoured Vehicles, Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns.
The SAF also has the 25mm rounds used on the heavy weapons on the Bionix AFV, and on the M113A3 Ultra's, and with some Bionix also utilising the 0.5 inch Heavy Machine Gun.
The SAF has the logistical support capacity and ability to handle a varied range of ammo types in a very organised and logical chain.
If a review is made in the use of 7.62mm weapons for the SAF Infantry, then the SAF should take lessons from the experience of the UK Military in Afghanistan, where encounters with enemy combatants are normally found to be beyond the effective range of the 5.56mm rounds, and new 7.62mm weapons are being purchased.
See also the other thread - ‘5.56mm bullets too small to bring down 'stoned' Talibans’
See report below - which was also reported in Jane's Defence 1-6 January 2010 issue :-
British troops get new Sharpshooter rifle to blast Taliban... because their weapons have a longer range than ours
By Ian Drury
Last updated at 3:45 PM on 18th January 2010British soldiers in Afghanistan will be issued with a new infantry combat rifle for the first time in 20 years, the Ministry of Defence announced today.
More than 400 Sharpshooter rifles, which fire a 7.62mm round, are being purchased as part of a £1.5million 'urgent operational requirement'.
The first batch of the U.S.-made rifles will be used by the 1st Battalion, The Parachute Regiment, from October
'Urgent requirement': More than 400 U.S.-made Sharpshooter rifles will be used by British soldiers in Afghanistan from October
Quentin Davies, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, said: 'Troops in Afghanistan are already bristling with a variety of weapons they can use when fighting the Taliban.
Capable: The new rifle, the first to be issued to infantrymen in 20 years, fires a 7.62mm round and has a kill range of up to 900 yards
'The Sharpshooter rifle adds to this arsenal and provides them with an additional, highly-precise, long-range capability.
'This is a concrete example of where we add to our range of equipment to ensure our brave forces have the best kit available to them on the frontline.'
Sharpshooter rifles have a 'kill range' of up to 900 yards, while the Army's standard issue SA80 A2 assault rifle, which fires smaller 5.56mm bullets, is limited to around 300 yards.
Insurgents in Afghanistan are said to have learned the effective range of the current issue weapons and return fire from their AK47 rifles, which also fire 7.62mm bullets, from further away.
The MoD said the semi-automatic weapons, also known as L129A1 rifles, were the first new infantry combat rifle to be given to troops in more than two decades.
Colonel Peter Warden, Light Weapons, Photographic and Batteries team leader at Defence, Equipment and Support, said: 'The Sharpshooter rifle is very capable and has been bought to fulfill a specific role on the frontline in Afghanistan.
'It is a versatile weapon which will give our units a new dimension to their armoury.
'Initial feedback to the rifle has been very positive and the Army units deployed in Afghanistan are very keen to get their hands
The L129A1 Sharpshooter is a gas-operated weapon that carries a 20-round magazine. It is 945mm long and weighs 5kg. It will be manufactured by Lewis Machine & Tool Company in the United States. Features include a single-piece upper receiver and free-floating, quick-change barrels available in 305mm, 406mm and 508mm. It has four Picatinny rails with a 540mm top rail for night vision, thermal and image intensifying optics.
-
Time for SAF to improve its small arms inventory.
-
I doubt the sar-21 is a more effective weapon than its main competitor the AUG from the following observations:
1)heavier
2)non STANAG mags
3)fire controls positioned at the buttstock of the rifle
I cant see why its an effective modern weapon when some rifle designed nearly 30 years ago can outdo it on the above, mostly.
-
Yes considering that the SAR21 came a long time after the AUG and about the time of the Tavor it is rather amazing we have such a rifle which : -
is grossly overweight
has very poor ergonomics wrt controls for safe, semi auto
lacks a night sight ( visible laser is a bummer & not a night sight )
lacks even a single P rail
has non interchangable mags with other weapons in SAF section ( we still have M16s with M203s using STANAG mags & modified M16 mags for SAW ) ; so pathetic - three different type of non interchagable mags in a section ; talk about standardization and difficulties in logistics support !
-
money nort well spent,,,,,,they should be manufacturing a modern lightweight minigun thats mounted on the waist with bullet cannisters situated in front and at the back all bullet prrof for extra protection.....then if its too heavy they should build it on a mini tracked system powered by a motorbike engine.....
a small tracked system no bigger than the bike engine....just attach small tracked system at the side of engine and directly run itinto a high torque gear system.the guns n ammo nwould be mounted from a steel structure that grows out from the engine chasis itself!!
it beats simply going around all day holding all those dumb heavy rifles or lite machineguns 24hrs /dat 7 days a week!
-
anyone saw the updated SAR-21 in the newspaper today?
SAR-21A
improvements:
1)P-rail for its entire length
2)3.2KG unloaded
3)higher ROF
4)ambidextrous
lets just hope the FCS can be shifted to the firing hand posotion...
-
Ah, finally they are getting down towards updating the SAR to be more in line with recent developments in small arms.
Was rather interested when I read the news, would like to try my hand on this new variant and see how it handles. -
kudos to ST for lisenting to feedback, anyway hope this is implemented into SAF.
but i doubt standard grunts, (not comando, NDU, guards) will be allowed to customize weapons with our standardisation routine
-
anyway its supposedly showcased at the airshow, ill be going this weekend, maybe can get a peek at it.
hmm somehow the looks appeal to me, rifle looks, hmmm sounds silly, but it looks focused on functionability haha, the hand grip looks strange though, is the flat base for it to rest on the ground or walls for stability?
-
Originally posted by ktk:
doubt the sar-21 is a more effective weapon than its main competitor the AUG from the following observations:
1)heavier
2)non STANAG mags
3)fire controls positioned at the buttstock of the rifle
I cant see why its an effective modern weapon when some rifle designed nearly 30 years ago can outdo it on the above, mostly.
Maybe you need to take a closer look.
Ultimately the move back then was to replace the STANAG mag with a new system that performs better. The STANAG mag leaves much to be desired in terms of reliability and durability. The switch to polymer mags is not surprising... thou the CHOICE of the SAR-21's polymer mag design is, which introduces compability issues with older systems.
More interestingly, the SAR-21 export versions could take the STANAG mag. Additionally most of them did away with the cheapo 1.5x scope for modular mounts.
Reliability and safety of the SAR-21 trumps the Aug. Saw the results of the chamber explosion test.
My take? ST had far more capable versions of the SAR-21 ready... but the SAF chose to go for the bare-bones version instead, which could be considerably improved. Maybe they are waiting for one big upgrade to a better standard variant that could be applied across the board like the SAR-21A? I dunno.
Don't see many issues with the SAR though... harshest critics of it always seem to be local, but the foreign operators using it, sometimes in combat conditions don't seem to be feeding back a lot of scating reviews.
-
Originally posted by Nuad:
kudos to ST for lisenting to feedback, anyway hope this is implemented into SAF.
but i doubt standard grunts, (not comando, NDU, guards) will be allowed to customize weapons with our standardisation routine
Probably going to take a while before any of this filters down to the common NSF or NS man.
Problem is not that we don't have the technology to make a better rifle, or have not done it... it's that the military takes pretty long to get about to implementing it, often to the case by the time they did, something better had come up. For 1997 the basic SAR-21 was pretty impressive, but by 2003 it was obvious the design philosphy of trying to provide intergated LADs and scopes to the common grunt all in one standard package was a wrong direction to take given how rapidly modular systems have been developed in the meantime.
Then of course now with the 3G SAF, modular systems are suddenly so much more practical. I don't see the ACMS using a basic SAR-21.