SAR-21 vs G-36
-
Several points:
1. The reason the Israeli army uses M16s rather than Galils is because they receive a lot of foreign aid from the US that can ONLY be spent on American weaponry. Therefore they would rather buy M16s rather than waste their own precious money on Galils. Think of it as the American gov't "rewarding" their arms manufacturers (who then give executive positions to Congressmen when they retire).
2. The requirements of the Israeli army are very different from ours from a tactical standpoint. Ranges in the desert are much longer than in the fighting the SAF expects to encounter. That is why the Israelis employ so many snipers (.50 cal snipers some more). Even when they are forced into urban combat, the Israelis don't FIBUA like the SAF does. Their doctrine seems to be to use engineers and armor to just tear down the whole built-up area like in Hebron or Jenin (even when there are civilians!). In fact, the Israelis seem to be equipped for classic armor-based desert warfare, while the SAF is strongly geared toward infantry-based jungle and urban warfare. As a result, the Israelis have almost no use for LADs thanks to the long engagement ranges and lack of close assault doctrine.
3. The SAR21 has a few good points that you did not bring up:
A. It does not shit where it eats. The M16 feeds its gas directly back into the mechanism to cycle the bolt, making it one of the dirtiest rifles out there. The SAR21 and G36 both use gas pistons like most modern weapons (and even the old AK47), which makes a lot more sense. This is why M16s and M4s suck -- reliability and maintenance.
B. The SAR21 (uniquely) does not require any zeroing, or at least very little. To me, this is its strongest feature. It really helps if you can just pick up any rifle and fire it accurately first shot.
C. It has very low felt recoil according to most experts, though I don't know how the G36 fares here.
D. It really is smaller than the G36 -- you don't fire the G36 (or any other carbine or folding-stock rifle) with the stock folded if you want any accuracy. Unless you are firing from the hip or a vehicle, you're going to need to open the stock and put it against your shoulder, just like any other rifle. Then the G36 becomes a bit long.
E. The SAR21 is OUR rifle. This means that we have every right to produce, improve and modify it. It also means that we understand completely how it works. We can actually make a Mk 2 version without asking for permission, or reverse-engineering something like a G36. We can make as many as we want, when we want, along with as many spare parts as we like. This is very important.
However, I agree that the SAR21 needs some improvement on the ergonomic side. The position of the fire selector is particularly screwed up. And the push-in safety is for things like MGs, not for something like an assault rifle, where you need to switch quickly with one hand. The SAR21 is also a bit heavier than it should have been.
4. You really don't want to use an M16 with all the junk on it. Each item needs seperate zeroing and targeting devices. This is a pain in the ass, particularly with LADs and other aiming aids. That is also why most armies don't issue their grunts with these (only special forces). It is hard to keep the zeroing of add-ons when you are bashing around on maneuvers. As a previous poster said, they also shift the center of balance of the weapon, making it harder to use and less accurate. The SAR21 has the center of balance right over your hand, which is very nice. -
maybe someone should bring up this thread to DSTA on how to improve the SAR21 based on everyone's opinions..
thats wat i called a productive forum..hehee
-
Another thing -- the "standard" G36 used by the German Army has 3.5x sights and a reflex sight, but no backup iron sights! Imagine if your optics fail for any reason. At least the export version with the 1.5x sights still has iron sights (no reflex sights though).
On a side note, I do not see the point of having anything more than 2x magnification on a 5.56mm rifle. Your maximum effective range is quoted as 800m, but at that range your round may not seriously injure your enemy even if you hit. 5.56mm rounds rapidly lose energy as they fly, and will not hit with enough force to fragment inside the target's body outside 150m. Accuracy also goes to hell because the little projectile gets pushed easily by crosswinds. I would consider your "real" maximum range to actually be only 400m or so, and ordinarily never order my men to fire outside that range if I can help it. At that kind of range, 2x sights are more than enough. Higher magnification sights are more suitable for larger calibre weapons with longer ranges.
On another side note, I also do not see the point of quoting cyclic rates for weapons like assault rifles. The weapon is not meant for sustained fully automatic fire. Your firing rate is limited more by the rate at which you can take aim and change your magazine than by any mechanical aspect of the weapon. Even firing full auto, there is not that much of a difference between different assault rifle firing rates since your magazine is so small. This measure only makes sense for machine guns and automatic cannons. While I'm at it, I must say that I find the magazine change on the SAR21 difficult. They should put the magazine release near enough to the trigger group so that you can release the magazine with your trigger hand (thumb) while your free hand takes the other magazine and slaps it home, like in a conventional rifle. More ergonomics problems =/ -
Originally posted by philip72:
cannot lah! who would bring an extra grenade launcher out field??? under what remote conditions would such adjustments be "necessary"? if u hardly ever utilise a function, how can we ever justify that its "necessary?"
But wouldn't it be great if everyone got a 3.5x scope to go with his rifle? And wouldn't it be nice to know that you can fit an M203, and the other accessories, to a standard rifle in the field if necessary without having any specialist help or waiting for that M203 eqiupped SAR21 to arrive?
it was never intended to be a procedure that could be done out field. how many times did U remove the handguard of the M16 out field??? i've only done it in the peace and quiet of my bunk and it can still prove to be a pain to remove and replace. any procedure that requires such adjustments are usully done by the armourers anyway.Yet, yet another point: the American SF troops (even their airborne troops) in Afghanistan still uses the M4 or the M16. And if you look at the photos, they are fitted with all the cool accessories like ACOG sights, LAD designators (they don't seem to be bothered about the CG being off balance), etc.
they can do whatever they want. its their army. i don't wanna have to carry all that crap on my weapon when i need to sweat it out in the jungle and charge up a hill! (not looking forward to my next ICT )
to my experience, its cumbersome to carry such seperate nonsensical add on modules on top of your combat load and your not very light weapon...
another possibility that it doesn't bother the ang moh is because the M-16 was designed for the ang moh. they are more big sized so the weight and size wouldn't bother them as much. the SAR21 was built for the smaller asian frame so even though its slightly heavier, the weight is more evenly distributed for a smaller sized user. i've often felt that my M-16 was falling all over with all the add-ons even though i've properly adjusted my sling.
not to mention that organic SAF section commanders wear NVGs and their carry their sect-com load so its quite siong to carry so many things all over and still function effectively. the SAR21 helps by making the load more manageable. -
*sigh* looks like I'm one of the few M16 fans here.
With regards to why the Israelis use the M16s instead of the Galil, please refer to this great website: www.isayeret.com. I think the web master is an Israeli himself, so he should know what he is talking about. Basically, the Israelis could have used either M16s or Galil's, but their SF units took the lead, and started using M16s and CAR15's simply because they are better.
About the M16s eating it's own shit, yeah, I've got to concede this point. It's a pain having to clean the bolt-carrier everytime you use it. But it does make for a lighter rifle. And with proper modern ammunition with cleaner burning powders, the amount of cleaning is reduced. No problems with reliability either.
I'm still sticking to the point about versatility, because I think it's an important point. It's not only important at a tactical level, it's also a strategic point. The more versatile a weapon is, the easier it would be for logistics. Things like shooting scopes, M203s, etc, can be shipped to the front seperately. This is less bulky.
At the tactical level, if the weapon is damaged, you can remove the add-on's and give it to another weapon in the field. The section leader won't have to do without his M203, or his shooting scope in the field. Mind you, if the SAR21 version to be issued is the P-rail version, this problem would be solved.
Much has been made about how you do not need to zero the SAR21, but how exactly has this been achieved? The shooting scope is that it is focused to infinity. As long as the user can see the sight picture, he does not have to worry about the position of his eye relative to the weapon. Thus, the shooting scope can be zeroed at the factory itself to the barrel of the weapon without having to worry about the individual user of the weapon. The same goes for the LAD, which is also zeroed to the barrel.
So, it is not some magical quality of the SAR21. STK has taken the extra step to make things easier for us. This means that this can be duplicated in other rifles, including the M16, if these uses scopes or reflex sights.
It also means that for other versions, like the P-rail version, you DO have to zero the sights if it the sights have not previously been zeroed to the barrel. Or if for some reason, the shooting scope loses its zero relative to the barrel, you do have to zero the scope again, back to the barrel.
Btw, one of the advantages of the KAC modular system is that it allows accessories such as LAD and shooting scopes to be fitted, zeroed in, and then taken off and kept in the haver-sack. These can then be refitted without loss of zero, because of the clamp and rail system employed. It also has the advantage that you can adept your weapon to mission necessity in the field. It also means that you can put what you don't need in the haver-sack, making for a lighter weapon. -
Hey, I don't think anyone here is anti-M16 per se -- it's just that it is important to call a spade a spade and identify both the good and bad points of each weapon under consideration.
It is true that the M16 is a good weapon. I like it better than the SAR21 in its current form due to ergonomic problems actually. However, the M16 has limitations to its design that cannot be overcome. For example, it would not be impossible to create a KAC system for the SAR21, or to change the position of its controls. The furnishings of a weapon are relatively easy to change. The SAR21 is not the answer either to me though. However, with enough thought, a good weapon that is adaptable to the various needs of troops in the field can be come up with.
Fundamentally, there are two main differences between the SAR21 and the M16:
1. Bullpup configuration. This is one of the huge debates in the gun world. Which is better? Bullpups are definitely shorter, but the cost is poor ergonomics. In order to solve the problems with bullpups, they need to become truly ambidextrous (can be fired from either shoulder at any time), and the magazine change must be easier. Truly ambidextrous fire can only be achieved if casings can somehow not eject into the user's face. This can only be done if casings eject forward and downward, rather than left or right (or if you have caseless weapon). This is not trivial to achieve in a compact and light manner, but is important. Fixing magazine change is harder, since fooling around with a magazine well under your chin will always be hard.
2. Mechanism. The M16 has that fouling problem. The SAR21 is currently unproven (but looks good in terms of reliability and recoil). We'll have to see. However, it seems to me that the SAR21 is easier to adapt (a LMG version with replaceable barrel is available, if I remember correctly). Does the SAR21 have a free-floating barrel?
If anything, I feel that the day of the assault rifle may be ending. Modern American Interceptor body armor can stop 5.56mm point blank, and even 7.62mm at range with the ceramic plates in. While body armor (currently) does not cover every part of the body and the user still is bruised when hit, it makes me wonder how much longer rapid firing small calibre weapons will remain effective.
Some form of rapid firing grenade launcher would probably be the way to go for the true infantry weapon of the future. For example, South Africa and Russia both field 6 shot revolver style 40mm grenade launchers. Everybody here probably has heard of the 20mm OICW grenade launcher, but I feel that the programme is rather misguided (simplicity is important in a weapon). A much simpler version would be better. 20mm is almost the same as 12 gauge, so it might be possible to create something like an automatic 12 gauge shotgun that instead fires 20mm impact or "hopper" airburst grenades, with flechette rounds for CQB (12 to a magazine like the Jackhammer automatic shotgun). Ring aerofoil grenades with flat trajectories would allow the weapon to be pretty accurate at range. Carry a PDW as well if you're really paranoid that the enemy will get close. A notional 10mm launcher might be even better. This would actually be a form of explosive ammo, which I believe is forbidden by convention, but you never know... -
I agree that the SAR-21 has to be fully ambidexed to be considered a respectable CQB weapon. I don't know how real CQB is fought, never been in such a situation. But in the games I know, being able to peek around the corner with a rifle on your left shoulder is important. Of course, the other option is just to "bang" your way through with explosives. That would still not elimnate the problems on a corner situation where the wall's on the right. In airsoft skirmishes, a mirror often proves useful, rather than peeking over with your left shoulder.
About the SA-80, its basically a cut down version of the Enfield L85. Its like the M4, cut down version of the M16.
Honestly, I still consider the G-36 to be a very well designed and built weapon. But you gotta remember, H&K has been producing firearms, from rifles, sniper systems, submachine guns to pistols for years. They have the experience in the field. For Singapore to come up with the SAR-21 is truly a respectable. With more upgrades and more variants and future modifications, there is still room for development. -
Agree with dkhoo's point about the problem with bull-pup designs. The only bull-pup design so far that's really satisfactory from the ergonomics point of view is the FN P90 5.7mm. It is truly ambidextrous as empty cartridges are ejected downwards, and the controls and sights can be used from either side of the gun. On top of that, it's magazine holds 50 rounds, and it uses a reflex sight. Newer versions even have P-rails on top and to the sides. A very well thought out design. As some of you had already noticed, the commandoes are using it. Only problem is, it's using a rather unique round that is even less powerful than the 5.56mm!
-
Check out the new FN F2000 bullpup -
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as41-e.htmOriginally posted by philip72:Agree with dkhoo's point about the problem with bull-pup designs. The only bull-pup design so far that's really satisfactory from the ergonomics point of view is the FN P90 5.7mm. It is truly ambidextrous as empty cartridges are ejected downwards, and the controls and sights can be used from either side of the gun. On top of that, it's magazine holds 50 rounds, and it uses a reflex sight. Newer versions even have P-rails on top and to the sides. A very well thought out design. As some of you had already noticed, the commandoes are using it. Only problem is, it's using a rather unique round that is even less powerful than the 5.56mm! -
WOW! So it has already been done right!
The F2000 is really a tremendous advance if it works as advertized. STK needs to somehow acquire the technology used in that weapon (either by purchasing it, or "other means"). If the technology in the F2000 (advanced bullpup design with downward casing ejection), SAR21 (no zeroing) and G36 (reliability and ergonomics) could be combined, you'd have the ultimate assault rifle. That targeting system for the F2000 looks interesting too. I heard that once you set the range with the laser, all you need to do is raise the weapon. At the right elevation, a light will come on in the sight, and the 40mm grenade will fly that range. Simple and effective (unlike OICW).
The 5.7mm round is designed to penetrate armor. It also apparently has a very flat trajectory, making it very accurate. But you are right that it doesn't injure the target quite as much as current 5.56mm rounds. Still, it is a nice calibre. -
The P90 is pretty cool indeed. However, I have heard of rounds falling loose, jammed if the magazine was dropped or have encountered "shock." Unsure about that though.
For me, I don't mind sticking to the SAR-21 for my NS days. Its as good as it gets in the region. -
Wow.
I've seen the advertisements on the F2000 in Jane's Defence Weekly, but haven't actually read any material on it. You are right, if it works as advertised, it'll really be a good weapon, especially with the grenade launcher reflex sight being incorporated into the rifle shooting sight.
By the way, speaking of combo sights, the Israeli Military Industry's new Travor bull-pup rifle uses an ITL MARS, which is a reflex sight incorporating a LAD. It's a unit that's only about the size of the older Bushnell Holo-sight. Not sure how powerful it is, but in comparison to this neat design, the separate LAD and shooting scope design of the SAR21 seems rather bulky and a bit "one-generation-behind". -
Firstly... I am REALLY REALLY thankful that they are people here who actually realise some of the fatal flaws of the SAR-21.
We need a SAR-21A2 quick!
Bad points.
1.) I hate the auto selector. It isn't as well placed as on the M-16 and carbine. With the latter two weapons, one can easily snap the weapon to auto with the thumb and fire away. When one needs full-auto, chances are that you'll need it in a desperate hurry. The M-16 style switch is definitely better.
2.) It's too heavy for an advanced rifle. Enough said.
3.) Reloading from prone position exposes you too much and requires a lot of movement. (as with all bullpups)
4.) Require left hand to check for if magazine is in the well when in total darkness. You can check one-handed (with an extended right middle finger) with the M-16 and carbine.
5.) Unable to secure mag with rubber band as with M-16 and carbine.
6.) Reloading is much slower.
M-16/Carbine
a.)Right index push mag eject to drop old mag while left hand grabs fresh mag from webbing.
b.)Slam mag in well and slap bolt release with one swift movement.
c.)Ready.
SAR-21
CANNOT eject mag with right hand when holding weapon! Needs left hand to release. You WASTE a valuable second that can be better spent grabbing a fresh mag from the webbing.
a.)Right hand holds, left hand ejects.
b.)Left hand grabs for fresh mag.
c.)Left hand slams in mag.
d.)Ready.
7.) Magazine well is hard to locate in the dark on a SAR-21. Person's hands can find each other instinctively in the dark, making it easy to reload M-16, carbine in total darkness. (Same principal applied to Uzi SMG, mag's in the pistol grip.)
8.) Safety is very stiff and 'click' is not as easy to judge as on M-16/carbine. (Not sure if due to new weapon)
9.) Safety's position is utterly stupid. With the M-16/carbine, one can snap off the safety with thumb and fire immediately with index finger. With the SAR-21, a valuable second is wasted moving index finger from trigger to safety to trigger.
10.) Lousy for drill. Handles like a carbine. (sucks totally) M-16 is the best way to go for drill.
Good points.
1.) Supposedly very accurate. Guys I know praise the scope and laser.
2.) Mags are hard plastic... A lot less likely than the tinny mags of the M-16/carbine to damage and cause IA.
3.) Mags transparent.
4.) Easy to strip.
5.) Size comparable to carbine (but still think my carbine looks sexier)
6.) Looks deadly. (Important point for soldier to have confidence in weapon) -
And btw, Shotgun, the P90 was meant to 'jam' upon being dropped to prevent accidents. (Its true... a lot of people waste themselves or buddies in dumb mistakes like these. Thats why dropping 40 when a weapon is dropped in BMT and training schools is healthy for everyone!)
I heard that you only need to cock it again to unjam the weapon. -
I understand that our rifle section consists of
currently,
Rifleman w/LAW x2
Rifleman w/M203 x2
SAW x2
and Section Leader.
Is it currently too heavy? As in too difficult to advance and attack?
Is it feasible to change to the following:
SAR21 w/LAWx2
SAR21 w/M203x2
SAR21LMG x2
Medic
and Sharpshooter *Not necessary a sniper* Just some guy with better range and marksmanship. Equipped with a Sharpshooter mod of the SAR-21.
Finally Section Leader. -
The section was changed from 9 man to 7 man so that a battlion size can be reduced from 800+ men to about 600+. Now you are suggesting that they change the structure again? What would the top brass think?Originally posted by Shotgun:I understand that our rifle section consists of
currently,
Rifleman w/LAW x2
Rifleman w/M203 x2
SAW x2
and Section Leader.
Is it currently too heavy? As in too difficult to advance and attack?
Is it feasible to change to the following:
SAR21 w/LAWx2
SAR21 w/M203x2
SAR21LMG x2
Medic
and Sharpshooter *Not necessary a sniper* Just some guy with better range and marksmanship. Equipped with a Sharpshooter mod of the SAR-21.
Finally Section Leader.
Anyway, I think a 7 men section is too small. A 9 men section is definitely better.
Why do you think the LMG version of SAR-21 is better than the current Ultimax 100?
I also reckon 1 of the LAW guy can be doubled up as a sharpshooter, thus there should at least be 2, but hopefully 3 sharpshooters in a section. When push comes to shove, I am pretty sure that the likelihood of losing the only sharpshooter is pretty good, thus you need a "succession" plan -
i kinda like this config. don't really need a medic cos in the heat of battle, the last thing u're thinking of is getting a medic to wrap u up... they come in later... if u're still breathing.Originally posted by Shotgun:I understand that our rifle section consists of
currently,
Rifleman w/LAW x2
Rifleman w/M203 x2
SAW x2
and Section Leader.
Is it currently too heavy? As in too difficult to advance and attack?
Is it feasible to change to the following:
SAR21 w/LAWx2
SAR21 w/M203x2
SAR21LMG x2
Medic
and Sharpshooter *Not necessary a sniper* Just some guy with better range and marksmanship. Equipped with a Sharpshooter mod of the SAR-21.
Finally Section Leader.
its actually easier to advance with this config. not too many men to hold u up. easily move groups around to cover fire or move forward. it also has most of the capabilities to counter most threats a rifle section may encounter. SAW for rapid fire support and ambush, LAW to take out soft skin vehicles, and with the SAR21, even a bobo can take out a targets 200-300m away... any further and the 5.56 can't reach effectively or u can't see cos its full of trees and buildings anyway.
anyway, sections seldom operates alone so why bother having so many people for? -
The current section size is kind of joke man, where in the world got 7 men section, speaking from ex-experience, an ideal section size should be 10 men section, consists of:
1 x Section Leader
1 x 2IC
2 x 4 men squad consists
- 1 x rifleman+LAW
- 1 x rifleman+M203
- 1 x SAW
- 1 x rifleman
similar to standard US Army formation horOriginally posted by CX:i kinda like this config. don't really need a medic cos in the heat of battle, the last thing u're thinking of is getting a medic to wrap u up... they come in later... if u're still breathing.
its actually easier to advance with this config. not too many men to hold u up. easily move groups around to cover fire or move forward. it also has most of the capabilities to counter most threats a rifle section may encounter. SAW for rapid fire support and ambush, LAW to take out soft skin vehicles, and with the SAR21, even a bobo can take out a targets 200-300m away... any further and the 5.56 can't reach effectively or u can't see cos its full of trees and buildings anyway.
anyway, sections seldom operates alone so why bother having so many people for? -
Singapore does not have enough males mah.... still SAF wants to retain the division, battalion, company structure/numbers and thus have to reduce men in each sections to distribute around to make up of the structure loh....Originally posted by bigballs11:The current section size is kind of joke man, where in the world got 7 men section, speaking from ex-experience, an ideal section size should be 10 men section, consists of:
1 x Section Leader
1 x 2IC
2 x 4 men squad consists
- 1 x rifleman+LAW
- 1 x rifleman+M203
- 1 x SAW
- 1 x rifleman
similar to standard US Army formation hor
I like the 9 men section previously, I think a typical section leader + a 2IC not doubling up as a M203 / Sharpshooter / LAW guy is a real reduce of firepower.
Just off topic... anyone consider having a M16/Pump-action combi weapon for FIBUA? -
You mean the MasterKey (think that's its name)?
M4 plus shortened combat shotty under the barrel instead of a M203. (though you can get the same effect magnified with a M203 shotgun round!)
Note: Edited to provide correct name. -
1 full size division the most is 10,000-15,000 men, 5+2 division requirement the most only 100,000 men, so the rest of the 200,000 men are lobo meh? Not enough men doesn't mean cut down on section manpower and expect achieving the same firepower/efficiency of a 10 men full section. The need for full size 10 men section has to take into consideration injured/genking pai-ka-paichew/off-in-lieu-forever personnel in actual scenerio. Taken into consideration all unpredictable elements, say only 70% strength, at least U still have 7 men to form an workable section. For 7 men section, 70% strength you only end up 4 fighting troopers and 1 liability. Don't know how those stupid "SCHOLAR" no field experience f**king ass-sucking lobo officer plan such stupid orbat, should all end up in firing squadOriginally posted by Joe Black:Singapore does not have enough males mah.... still SAF wants to retain the division, battalion, company structure/numbers and thus have to reduce men in each sections to distribute around to make up of the structure loh....
I like the 9 men section previously, I think a typical section leader + a 2IC not doubling up as a M203 / Sharpshooter / LAW guy is a real reduce of firepower.
Just off topic... anyone consider having a M16/Pump-action combi weapon for FIBUA? -
I agree, 7 man section, u only have 2 fire teams consisting of 3 man each. I mean... something is wrong. 3 man how to provide enough covering fire for the 2nd team to advance?
10 men section would be good. But 9 men section is pretty good too. I disagree with the sharpshooter doubling up as the "rocker." When you get the sharpshooter, u want him to be delivering well aimed shots, while the rest of the team pins them down. At the same time, LAWs or SRAW, 40mm grens can thump their position.
Then again, perhaps SAF infantry sections are supposed to work with so much mechanized support that they are willing to throw away the 3 men for 1 AFV in support.
M4-MasterKey? Sounds like a good idea... PDF formations should recieve them. Then again, the shotgun under the masterkey is not really mean to kill, but to blow hinges off doors for quick entry. -
Shotgun -- it's clear you've not led a Singaporean infantry section before. By doctrine, the 7 man section is divided into 3 fireteams or "groups", with 2 men each, and the section leader accompanying one of the teams (usually the first "assault" team). Other ad hoc arrangements are possible.
My personal take on this is that a 7 man team is appropriate. It's not just a matter of manpower. In close terrain, large elements are difficult to maneuver and coordinate. A 2 man group is about right for both FIBUA and jungle fighting, in my experience. This leads naturally to a 7 man section with a section commander.
Why not larger teams? Contrary to what people think, larger teams do not mean more firepower. You still need to deploy your men with appropriate spacing between them, so a 10 man section has just as many "men per metre" as a 7 man section. Firepower is a measure of the equipment carried by the soldier and his skill at using it.
The size of your combat formations is a training or command and control issue, rather than a firepower issue. The pros and cons of larger vs smaller combat formations, IIRC:
1. Larger formations have room for redundancy. One of the posters mentioned how combat and administrative losses might make our 7 man sections inoperative in combat. This is true, and a weakness of our formations. If one man in a 3 man fireteam is killed, it's bad. But if one man in a 2 man fireteam is killed, the team has been rendered ineffective.
2. Larger sections can be more diverse and flexible in terms of equipment. That seems to be the main thing being focussed on in this discussion. It's hard to carry 4 or 5 types of weapons to deal with a wider variety of situations if there are just a few men in your section. However, I feel that this is overstretching the role of an infantry section. It's much easier to evade in jungle or urban terrain, so it isn't as necessary to be able to take out all kinds of threats you might run into. Also, carrying all that stuff, reduces the strength of the section in its primary roles. Jack of all trades, master of none.
3. Larger formations need more space to deploy. If your men are used to fight in 10 man sections, then they will need around 30 metres to deploy "3-up". Find me a 30 metre wide space in jungle. They can of course deploy differently, but they aren't trained or used to doing that. They will have a tendency to "cluster fuck". This small example is only the tip of the iceberg. The size of your section has to be appropriate to the terrain.
4. Larger formations are harder to control. In jungle, you can hardly see 5 metres in any direction standing up. How are you going to effectively command 9 other men deployed across 30 metres while prone? (Where are my men? Can they hear me? Who is the one shouting goddammit? Where is the fucking enemy?) It's not easy. It is not uncommon for the 2 men in a fireteam to lose each other in a maneuver in jungle. Imagine 10 men trying to maintain coherency. Then imagine trying to command three of these in a platoon. In an ambush, the front will be getting massacred, and the back won't even know what the hell that noise in front is. In contrast, in desert, you can see clearly for hundreds of metres in all directions, so command and control is a lot easier.
In Vietnam, US Army and Marine Corps commanders often split their 10 man sections into smaller 2 man fireteams for these reasons. I feel that the situation as it stands now is OK. Regarding administrative and combat losses, redistribution of men between sections in a company can usually make up for this, since there are only 3 kinds of man in an infantry section (LAW, M203, SAW), though it is still a weakness. -
Hi All, sorry for the long absence from this forum...been busy
anyway, I was there at the Army Open House recently just so that i could test fire the SAR-21 at the Pasir Laba 100m Range.
I arrived so early that i was the first group to fire the weapon, so let me tell you guys something about my experience.
Setting: - I fired a total of 7 rounds from foxhole position with sandbag support at 3 diff targets - Fig 12, 11 and 10, and achieved perfect scores. Since I was the first group there and there weren't others there, I begged (yes begged) the guy there to let me fire another 7 rounds and i got it
Again, all 7 rounds hit. I fired the first 7 rounds resting on the sandbag, and the next 7 rounds w/o the sandbag support.
Performace: The weapon was weightier than the M16S1 that I was trained in, but its weight just made it feel more compact and 'tighter' when placed into the hollow of my shoulder. It balanced very very nicely and did not have the slightly bulkier feel of the M16S1.
The recoil on the SAR-21 was almost negligable and was definitely much less than the M16S1.
Aiming was also so much simpler. There's just a circle with a black dot in the centre which you will see when you look through the 1.5X scope. Put dot on target and fire.
Noise distraction from the 'crack' of the shot going off was not as loud as the M16S1 (or maybe cos i'm older now and going deaf)
Loading and Cocking:
The brown coloured translucent firbeglass magazine also had a 'solid' and 'tight' feel to it, even though it held 7 rounds, and doesn't 'rattle' the way our old M16S1 magazines did; and it slapped very nicely into the SAR-21.
The Cocking handle can be used easliy by both left and right handers, and it cocks very smoothly, much better than the M-16 which I had to sometimes pull a little harder at the end, just to hear the proper 'click'. The motion of pulling the cocking handle was very smooth.
In all, the weapon was a pleasure to handle: simple to load, cock and shoot. Aiming was easy and very accurate. It was day time so there was no chance to use the LAD.
By way of comparison, I want to share that my Uncle and young niece were also there to fire the SAR-21. She's only 12 and a mere 38 KG and in Primary 6. She hit all 7 rounds spot on, on a figure 12. Imagine that. The rifle is so easy to fire that a child could put 7 rounds in rapid succession into a fighure 12 at 100m - with no training at all.
I mean, if she can do it...anyone can, trust me on this one. Our guys in uniform now truely have a fearsome weapon. -
Busy week for me, so haven't paid a visit for some time. Wow, there has certainly been some serious discussion.
I'm glad to see that there's someone else out there who share my opinion that the SAR21 is not necessarily a step forward, even if it's an easier gun to shoot. A 0.22 calibre bolt action target rifle is easier to shoot, but that doesn't mean that it should be adopted.
BTW, I don't know if you guys noticed that the members of the Police Task Force carrying the G36K's a while back? The other day, my colleague told me that he asked a PTF officer if they are considering the SAR21, and was told they were not. Don't know if this means they have rejected it, or just that they are not looking at it at the moment.