Inadequate SAF Small Arms Sights
-
Sorry that you are Underpaid but so am I.
Have a mini red dot sight on top of the 6X scope as do the British and US Armies. Better still get an Elcan with variable 2.5 to 6X sight.
Please be more professional - zero a 3X or more scoped weapon at 100 m and not at 25 m. I hope that our Leo2s do not also try to zero their 120s at 25 m.
Did you not learn to aim your fire at the enemy muzzle flashes in night fighting ? Do you also learn not to smoke or turn on your flashlight in the night ? I believe a visible laser puts out a much better light than all the above.
WRT calling on an F16, I rather be deaf than dead.
-
Bear in mind we only have a Defence force and the only time our small arms really need to shot and kill our Neigbours is when our leaders have used up all their options.
-
Hi Spencer,
Just for you to note that these wonder sights make a good shooter better.
They shoot faster , make multiple hits per target and to top it off, they can do it at longer ranges too. Iron sights are no match to the low mag variety of these sights in terms of speed & accuracy at short ranges. For long ranges, iron sights are of course no comparison to the scoped & mag sights. With the variable power sights, you get best of two worlds.
But of course one must apply all the fundamentals of shooting be it iron sights or not. As I said a good shooter becomes deadlier with these sights while a poor shooter just remains a target board even with an ACOG, Elcan or Aimpoint on his weapon.
-
Hi ahtansh,
The full power and might of the SAF will be called upon only as a last resort if & when the survival or existence of tiny Singapore is threatened by an enemy - whoever it might be. In the meantime we do live in a boring neighborhood - although we all like it that way.
The probability of total outright war in this region for the foreseeable future is now low although anything can happen anytime as we live in an unpredictable world.
In fact the highest probability of the SAF having to employ any of its weapons, if at all, will be when an installation ( military or civilian ) comes under for example a terrorist attack. And the NSman armed with the SAR21, M16 or any small arm will most likely be the immediate & probably only available resource able to thwart such an attack & not a Leo2 , F16 , GMLRS , Primus……………..
So, on the contrary, the SAF’s “lowly“ rifle as opposed to its other hi tech arsenal is a very high priority weapon for modernization and improvement. The SAF must immediately ensure that the NSman has the best available small arm tools so that threats in a higher probability scenario such as a terrorist attack can be quickly & effectively neutralized when the time comes.
-
There are more than enough snipers to deal with a terrorist attack and the last thing we want to do is to have untrained sniper wannabes tackling terrorists and shooting civilians. That's no justification for an incrementally top-rate sight.
Having said that, a good pair of binos is a worthwhile investment.
As an incentive, the Govt might want to give a tax deduction for anyone who buys a dual use item eg bino etc from a govt approved vendor. That will save taxes and encourage greater civil participation and ownership. That could be in a future budget wishlist.
-
6 posts in 2 hours, I suspect bias. :)
Be more professional.
In case you don't get it Sepa, all the wondersights you propose have serious weaknesses in aquiring the target 50m and below due to overmagnification, hence the zeroing comment, and frankly, I'm more likely to encounter a hostile 100M and below rather than 600m+ considering our operating terrain.
And you obviously never used a laser targetter if you say it puts out more peripheral vislight radiation than an L-torch or a ciggy. And if you did... I suggest a refresher course.
I already pointed out that that item was not supposed to be used independently, but in combination with a NVG/NVM to get both an illuminated target and an aimpoint as opposed to only illuminated sights and a near invisible target. A co-dependence that will be broken up by your suggestion (or rant).
I'm still more in favour of shotgun's suggestion of more hands on training, and weasel's mechanization ideas than getting long range sights for closed terrain fighting. Wonder if the Terrax can be fitted with a SRAM or the new US "Common Launcher" for better fire support.
-
Hi weasel,
I did not know SAF had snipers guarding all key installations – that will be great !
And I did not know that SAF had so many snipers- wow , this is awesome - I always thought that snipers were an elite force and hence there are limited numbers of them.
But then is’nt the normal rifleman not up to the mark to take out a terrorist and therefore a sniper is required ? So you doubt the probablity of our riflemen hitting an intruder at a key installation when using a SAR21.
As I have already stated repeatedly , a marksman is not a sniper. Neither is an infantryman. But if normal riflemen can hit man sized targets 100 % of the time at 50 m 200 m and up to 300 m and markmen can do so up to 400 to 600 m, then elite snipers will be needed only for up to 800 m or more.
If you not need top of the line equipment to give you the war winning edge, then there is also no justification for a top rate tank , top rate fighter, top rate
warship etc.
Buddy, you cannot use binos as a rifle scope.
Govt approved vendor ?? You must be in the civil service or working in a Govt linked company. Please do not pedal your wares here.
-
Dear Spencer,
Like I said , you clearly have never used a “wondersight “.
But, well like they say, ignorance is bliss.
Also, these so called “wondersights “ are in fact so wonderful
that many armies are using them by the tens of thousands.
You obviously have not read my posts – please read first before
commenting. These sights come in several flavors. The low mag
ones 1 to 2.5X are excellent for ranges from 0 up to 300 m. Iron
sights are especially at a big disadvantage at short ranges up to
50 m compared to these sights. Even 4X sights are used
effectively in urban combat – look at the BA example with SUSAT
which is a 4X sight. It has been in use for more than 20 years,
notably is Belfast during the war with the IRA.
No point encountering a hostile at 100 m or at any range if you
cannot engage him faster and more accurately than he can.
Even in the urban terrain, you clearly have opportunities to
engage targets out to 300 m or more.
Did I say peripheral ? You used this word - I did not.
Clearly it is you who have never been on the business end of a
laser. We are not talking “ peripheral “.
Does each SAF rifleman have a NVG ?
Aren’t we all for more training ? You sound as if the normal
SAF rifleman does not receive sufficient hands on training on his
weapon. If so , it is no wonder that you are all advocating calling
on a Terrex, F16, GLMRS ……………..when only good well
aimed & effective small arms fire are all that is required.
I am talking about you the rifleman being able to use his rifle
more effectively given the current state of the SAR21.
If all rifleman think like you , then there is no need for riflemen.
We just need to carry signal sets and comms equipment to call
for arty, air strike , Terrex, Leo2 to take out the enemy 100 m from
you.
-
Originally posted by Sepecat:
Hi weasel,
I did not know SAF had snipers guarding all key installations – that will be great !
And I did not know that SAF had so many snipers- wow , this is awesome - I always thought that snipers were an elite force and hence there are limited numbers of them.
But then is’nt the normal rifleman not up to the mark to take out a terrorist and therefore a sniper is required ? So you doubt the probablity of our riflemen hitting an intruder at a key installation when using a SAR21.
As I have already stated repeatedly , a marksman is not a sniper. Neither is an infantryman. But if normal riflemen can hit man sized targets 100 % of the time at 50 m 200 m and up to 300 m and markmen can do so up to 400 to 600 m, then elite snipers will be needed only for up to 800 m or more.
If you not need top of the line equipment to give you the war winning edge, then there is also no justification for a top rate tank , top rate fighter, top rate
warship etc.
Buddy, you cannot use binos as a rifle scope.
Govt approved vendor ?? You must be in the civil service or working in a Govt linked company. Please do not pedal your wares here.
Dun need snipers to do guard duty. Dun need scopes to perform guard duty as well. Won't be whacking anyone at 400-600m for guard duty. Irrelevant.Isn't your proposal to have everyone operating top end scopes for rifles? Wouldn't that make everyone a sniper?
My wanting binos is not to fire the rifle. Useful for plane watching.
As to peddling wares, which major company in Singapore isn't govt linked? I don't work for a company selling binos or sights so dun assume pls. No commission or vested interest except for a desire for a good pair of binos. If you don't want one, I would rather not be selfish and condemn a suggestion out of spite.
-
Yeah, I don't want extra expensive things on a rifle I touch once a year, and then have a chance to lose it outfield and waste time writing a stupid statement for it.
-
weasel, please read carefully.
Top end modern sights need not be of the large mag type. I repeat , even 1X modern sights make riflemen very much more deadly at 0 to 300 m, but even more so at the shorter ranges say 50 m.
Depending on the sniper rifle calibre, they can go up to 25X when using a .338 Lapua Magnum or 0.5 inch ( for the Barret ).
-
Ditzy, it is catastrophic if not very very stupid if you cant hit your target at 50 m when you happen to be doing guard duty one dark night at your army camp when an armed intruder tries to break into the camp armory. Or do you wish to call for an arty strike ?
-
Originally posted by Sepecat:
Ditzy, it is catastrophic if not very very stupid if you cant hit your target at 50 m when you happen to be doing guard duty one dark night at your army camp when an armed intruder tries to break into the camp armory. Or do you wish to call for an arty strike ?
If I cannot spot a damn thing at 50m at night, then I should not even be in the army.
-
Does Sepe call everyone spencer or did he get mixed up with someone else?
On training, YES! I think our hands on time with our weapons is woefully inadequate, once a year range is totally insufficient to gain proficiency in our firearms, not to mention loading 4 rounds per mag only does NOT in any way or form get us used to the handling/ergronomics of a fully loaded rifle. This is even worse for the heavy weapons people, not in terms of range time, but also in terms of understanding their weapon. Can a Law/Matador kill a light tank? APC? How deep is the practical penetration in that case? Enough to kill a MBT? Or the 0.5 GPMG? Problem is that the users really don't know what their weapon can do, over or underestimating their capabilities.
As for the laser part, you were the one who claimed the laser put out more radiation than a torch or cigrette and highly detectable, which is only partially true. It does give out more radiation, but on a highly narrow front as compared to the wide span emitting radiation (the "peripherial" emission that you can't seem to get) of a torch or a cigrette, and is actually less detectable provided you're not standing directly in front of it. And if you are... you do realise you're standing in the flightpath of a 5.56? :)
As for the NVG question... let's just say it's like the bullet-proof vest question and leave it at that.
If I had to engage the enemy, I'd be in serious shit. You do realise most armies field much larger squads than us? A US squad outnumbers my team 2:1, and this is not comparing the Soviet 10 man system. You go do your small arms fire, I'll stick with indirect fire support. After all, if you got it, why not use it? You TAG trained?
Back to the original sights question (rant)
You were comparing NATO strategic doctrine vs Singaporean strategic doctrine, which differ slightly in very important areas. When the US enters a Theatre, they'll try to secure large amounts of rear areas to build bases and firebases for support while the vanguard pushes forward to create defensive depth. This is similar to the Singaporean model only in the 2nd part, Singapore does not have the ability to set up large support bases in hostile territory or to guard them securely without the risk of being overrun in detail by superior numbers. In fact, the Singaporean model is more like raiding than an actual invasion, which also means support is limitted for things like optics repair (Murphy's Law, they WILL break sooner or later), or long term battery powered optics.
Personnel wise, European armies are professional full time soldiers as compared to our conscripts. Our "Air" level guys might be able to handle complicated optics, but we also have a core of "hokkian beng"... oh sorry, "peng". :P I forsee carnage when they get THEIR hands on your pretty little optics.
Equipment wise, I already mentioned the interplay between our equipment, so I won't belabour it again.
Terrain likewise, mentioned too.
So in 4 fields, strategy, personel, equipment dependencies and terrain, new sights only offer marginal improvements in some areas but also some risks in others, so I'll still say no.
You remind me of an old saying. "If you have a hammer, all problems start looking like nails." You obviously have an optical sight. All your problems start looking like range problems.
Has ANYONE agreed with you since you started the tread?
-
Ditzy , there is a difference in being able to see and being able to hit a target be it at 50 or 300 m in the dark, low light or in broad daylight.
And thank goodness that you can see something at 50 m at night. But I suppose that it is not a pitch black night, unless you have night vision.
-
An impression appears to be that existing SAF rifles including older generation ones cannot perform under 300m or in low-light/night conditions. This is patently false as anyone who has gone through NS would know. I think people should refocus back to the justification for the incremental benefits of a next-gen sight beyond 300m.
I think "Underpaid" made a good point about squad size. To add, it filters up in effect as one goes into platoon, company, battalion, brigade and division. The smaller number of shooters is magnified at division level.
It is rather similar to the Israeli context when they tackled far larger Arab formations. I would however highlight that Israeli force multipliers relied not just on indirect weapons capability but also direct weaponry eg MBTs. In desert storm, the Abrams were using the 12.7s to whack individual targets at far more significant ranges compared to small arms fire. Having said that, equipment like mortars was far more important in ensuring Israeli victory than small arms. Again, more SRAMs would make a greater difference.
That would suggest that sights should be improved at company level rather than squad eg GPMG, 12.7s or AGLs. ACSW is an interesting option but that would mean switching to 25mm from existing 40mm grenades. Ultimately, its a question of balance.
-
Is Spencer Underpaid ?
Underpaid, if you are saying that SAF is not giving sufficient emphasis in training for small arms firing / handling and that SAF soldiers do not know the capabilities of the weapons they are handling, we are in big trouble. It is the failure of the leadership if they do not ensure that their men know not only how to use their weapons effectively & proficiently , but also know the weapons' capabilities, pros & cons.
For the record, Matador will be able to kill light tanks, APCs & other softer targets. It can also be used to blow large holes in walls & knock out bunkers. It cannot kill a MBT, but it will take out a track, engine or optics. 50 cal sabot rounds can kill APCs or light armor, but if opponent has similar or bigger calibre weapon than yours, it is only a last resort.
And also for the record, I hope that I am in the majority to be able to tell you that I am very proficient in handling the SAF weapons I am assigned to. I am also fully aware of their capabilities and limitations - you obviously are not ? Which makes me wonder if your only experience is BMT.
A laser need only be pointing close or around you for you to know that you are being targeted and that is my point that the laser warns the target and worse still gives away the shooter because the target then knows exactly where the laser is coming from. It is akin to flashing a torch light and saying “here I am ”. Also, in a battlefield with lots of smoke and dust, the laser light reflected off these particles will betray the shooter’s position. Clearly using a visible laser in a battlefield at night is a big NO NO. It is a very impractical system for a night battle.
What is with NVGs and bullet proof vests ? Please clarify. What on earth are you talking about ?
If all SAF riflemen have an attitude like Underpaid , then there is no point in having riflemen in the SAF ORBAT. What is the point of training riflemen if they are afraid or have no confidence in engaging the enemy with their weapons ? What kind of rifleman are you ? More likely you are not. You want to call an airstrike to take out an enemy section that has already ambushed you ? Or maybe you can count on never being ambushed.
Don’t you know in all wars it is finally the infantryman / rifleman who has to close with the enemy in a close quarter battle. Do you know of any wars won only by arty and airpower ? Clearly you do not know what you are talking about.
For an infantryman the situation is shit when he has to engage the enemy hand to hand & not when he still have his weapons and ammunition. Why does the US Army need infantrymen given its overwhelming superiority in all kinds of weapons including ballistic missiles & stealth bombers ? The firefight between opponents with small arms will remain for now & in the future. If wars can be won without infantrymen , there will be none and we will all not need to do BMT in the first place.
What doctrine are you talking about where small unit tactics are concerned ? All armies have similar small unit tactics. I am talking about using the small arm proficiently and more effectively.
So you are also saying that SAF infantry men are all not up to standard. So what does a rifleman in an SIR unit do for 2 years during NS ?
Who are manning our Leo2s, Terrex, Spikes, NVGs, 155s etc. Aren’t these very very expensive weapons too ?
For your enlightenment, these modern optics are designed & built to be as soldier proof as possible. They are probably built tougher than you.
I am not looking for Forumers to agree with me on the effectiveness of these sights although at least one has said that these sights are good but are not in SAF top priority list. I already have at least more than half a million veterans of current conflicts that more than agree with me on this issue. My point is that our rifleman shud be so equipped when it a small cost compared to very expensive systems that we are already spending on and also since these sights have proven extremely effective in actual combat.
-
Weasel,
I repeat . I & many others shoot effectively up to 300 m with iron sights.
Specifically the M16 had good iron sights with an illuminated front post. The
SAR21 scope is an improvement over the old M16s in clear daylight conditions & I
shoot better with a SAR21 than an M16 in these conditions.
The problem with the SAR21 sight are mainly as follows :-
- The thick black ring reticle blocks out parts of a target at the longer ranges
- In low light or at night the reticles are not illuminated & are hence useless
- No ranging marks
The improvements in modern sights are NOT incremental over iron sights & the likes
of the SAR21 sight ; they are significantly better & make good shooters very much
better & much deadlier.
I repeat, if it is more expedient to take out an enemy with an arty or air strike or even a
Spike, do it. But if you already overmatch your opponent in small arms & the like at
section, platoon ,company & battalion level, it is quicker to do it with small arms which
are at your immediate disposal.
So you now agree that these modern sights can be valuable for support weapons. I
clearly support them being used but with higher mags of 4 or more. Better still
combined with thermal imaging equipment for the 24 hr battle.
I am talking about overpowering advantage as a rifleman facing an enemy rifleman at a
small unit level.
-
I'm not convinced that the latest sights improve effectiveness as much as claimed compared to existing, and far less below 300m where targets are already within normal visual range.
As mentioned in my first post on this thread, I think good gun sights serve as recon tools as well. This is generally not needed below 300m and a good pair of binos can easily replicate this capability beyond 300m.
The suggestion for better sights is certainly far better than your earlier raam suggestion. But in the context of the SAF, they do not replace everything just like that. Even AR-15s are still in service and its replacement is still performed incrementally.
I think if the SAF were to think the previous optical sights were sufficient, they would not have shifted production to the full length picatinny rail SAR-21A. The rail would allow for integration of other sights. In this regard, my guess is that the SAF would leverage on better sights eventually. It make sense to use the latest sights for later production models as they become available, subject to suitability. However, I doubt if this will extend into a retrofit.
-
"Is Spencer Underpaid ?"
Beats me, you'll have to ask him.
A bit careless there were you?
"Underpaid, if you are saying that SAF is not giving sufficient emphasis in training for small arms firing / handling and that SAF soldiers do not know the capabilities of the weapons they are handling, we are in big trouble. It is the failure of the leadership if they do not ensure that their men know not only how to use their weapons effectively & proficiently , but also know the weapons' capabilities, pros & cons."
Finally something we agree on.
"For the record, Matador will be able to kill light tanks, APCs & other softer targets. It can also be used to blow large holes in walls & knock out bunkers. It cannot kill a MBT, but it will take out a track, engine or optics. 50 cal sabot rounds can kill APCs or light armor, but if opponent has similar or bigger calibre weapon than yours, it is only a last resort."
Sepe, I know it can take out APCs, LTs etc I've seen the demo plates of chobham after they got shot at from a 0.5 all the way up to a 75mm. The question is, does my heavy weapons team know? Out of curiosity, are you just skimming posts? You seem to mis-comprehend a lot of things, either deliberately or carelessly.
"And also for the record, I hope that I am in the majority to be able to tell you that I am very proficient in handling the SAF weapons I am assigned to. I am also fully aware of their capabilities and limitations"
Typewriter? :P
"- you obviously are not ? Which makes me wonder if your only experience is BMT."
Woo... inuendo and slander. Nice going dude.
"A laser need only be pointing close or around you for you to know that you are being targeted and that is my point that the laser warns the target and worse still gives away the shooter because the target then knows exactly where the laser is coming from. It is akin to flashing a torch light and saying “here I am ”. Also, in a battlefield with lots of smoke and dust, the laser light reflected off these particles will betray the shooter’s position. Clearly using a visible laser in a battlefield at night is a big NO NO. It is a very impractical system for a night battle."
You can tune it down to the infra-red...
"What is with NVGs and bullet proof vests ? Please clarify. What on earth are you talking about ?"
Officially, all SAF soldiers will be equiped with L3 Kevlar Vests in times of war, but you don't often see them, only in rare cases like the hunt for Mas S. or that case where robbers escaped to Tekong with a pistol. Look through the old ST photos, you'll find some soldiers wearing vests, that was supposed to be our war attire. Same with the NV monocles.
"If all SAF riflemen have an attitude like Underpaid , then there is no point in having riflemen in the SAF ORBAT."
If all SAF riflemen have an attitude like SEPECAT, we need more crematoriums. Besides, if my team does get ambushed, approximate life expectency is about 2 mins. Not joking here. We just do not have the bodies to take casualties and retain fighting capability and by the time that damn smoke grenade goes off, chances are high we'll be dead. Which brings me to another pet peve of mine, short fuse smoke grenades...
"So you are also saying that SAF infantry men are all not up to standard. So what does a rifleman in an SIR unit do for 2 years during NS ?"
Eat and sleep like all the rest of the NS boys. :P Did my ACT in 2 SIR before being co-opted to... other things. Dare you to say I'm wrong, especially when I'm the personal eyewitness.
"For your enlightenment, these modern optics are designed & built to be as soldier proof as possible. They are probably built tougher than you."
You obviously havn't met any idiot who oiled a scope before. And yes, that happened at a range where me and my unit were doing a SAR21 conversion, a unit mate kept missing, which was very strange, our shooting is never THAT bad. We found the last NSF guy to store the rifle must have oiled the sights, besides being blurry, the parallex was off due to refraction off a thin layer of oil on the lens. That is the kind of "maintainance" your sights are going to see in a unit. Things are soldier proof until they hit idiots, idiot proof until they hit fools and foolproof until they hit soldiers. Get used to it. Not everyone has a degree and thinks like professors, we need to cater for the ground level idiots too. Like...
BTW, SEPECAT, what's the difference between our SAR scope and say... the aimpoint system you were pedelling?
-
Weasel, think the refit of P-Rails was not a slight against the sights but to actually bring the SAR21 more in line with international standards and add a greater degree of flexibility to the configuring. This means that if there is nothing seriously wrong with the sights, which I have found to be the case, they'll just keep the old batch soldiering on without improvements, so I won't hold my breath for a refit.
And I also agree with the SRAMs. As close arty support, they're invaluable to our small squads if forward deployed with Spiders. In this case, we'll need more trained artillery observers, preferably one per squad.
-
Hi All,
Spencer is adequately compensated and is not "Underpaid"...
:)
-
Bravo to spencer for not being underpaid like probably most of us. Sounds like you are just being too modest. I suspect that you must be Overpaid.
-
Underpaid, your explanation regarding NVGs and bulletproof vests please.
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
Weasel, think the refit of P-Rails was not a slight against the sights but to actually bring the SAR21 more in line with international standards and add a greater degree of flexibility to the configuring. This means that if there is nothing seriously wrong with the sights, which I have found to be the case, they'll just keep the old batch soldiering on without improvements, so I won't hold my breath for a refit.
And I also agree with the SRAMs. As close arty support, they're invaluable to our small squads if forward deployed with Spiders. In this case, we'll need more trained artillery observers, preferably one per squad.
Agreed. Same as SAR-21 replacing M-16 is not a slight against the M-16. Its just older tech.Some of the features of the SAR-21A does address complaints about ergonomics of the earlier SAR-21.
I like the ACMS concept which practically means that anyone holding the ACMS modules can become a forward observer (FO). The main weapon supporting CAS will still be arty + helo hellfires. A/c bombs + himars still need quite a bit of safety distance though that can change with new batches of bombs.
That's why theres a trend toward smaller bombs eg SDB. With less collateral damage, bombs can be targeted closer to forward lines. Until then, SRAMs, other mortars, AGLs + M203s with the far smaller blast is still necessary indirect fire support weapons.