Standard of SAF
-
It appears you have changed your tune from 'we can make it with SM1s" to "we have secret weapons we do not know about".Originally posted by kopiosatu:what makes u think singapore doesn't have better technology.
what is DSTA for?
just because we don't disclose stuff doesn't mean we don't have it.
what you know abt the law is just things we use in training.
when the actual war comes, we have the real weapons n armour.
what we are doing now is letting people train the basics.
in SG, they don't develop weapons in such a way until u have to learn a new skill to use it.
basically all weapons are the same, we all have weapons like rifles, grenades, tanks. just focus on your training. coz Singapore has things u don't know.
have u gone to army btw
No, the simple fact is, in order to deploy a mainline unit and make sure troops are versed in using them, we have to openly deploy them and train units in the use of them. They dun wait till the outbreak of war before releasing a new weapon system our "trained" troops know nothing about, of which it's quirks have not been tested in the field by the person whose opinion matters, the tankie. Introducing a new conventional weapons system (not covert secret weapons like the F-117) means quite a lot of media exposure, and exposure to the troops.
Saying that all weapons are the same and just focus on the training would be like saying everybody train in the M-16 and at the outbreak of war, suddenly issue SAR-21s out to everybody and expect them to use their M-16 training to fight effectively with the rifle! Even more so for tanks, if we had new advanced tanks, ours troops would be training in them now, and deployed widely so that our troops all know how to fight in them properly. What you are saying is that when war comes, they'll pluck you out from your SM1 and put you into a new tank you know nothing about and have no time to train in. Nonsense, anybody with common sense can tell you that!
The fact remains that, with our SM1 tanks, our armoured forces are outclassed and we remain reliant on our air support and other units that can only slow them down, not stop them for our anti-armour tatics. That is assuming we're defending. If we are attacking to take land to create defensive dept as the open secret of what Singapore is going to do in the event of war, can our SM1 tanks hopeful advance against ATGMs and MBTs?
Does Singapore have weapons systems they do not disclose? Probably yes, but only for those small scale deployment equipment, not as something as widespread as a tank! -
'trained' troops u mention... are not in SG.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:It appears you have changed your tune from 'we can make it with SM1s" to "we have secret weapons we do not know about".
No, the simple fact is, in order to deploy a mainline unit and make sure troops are versed in using them, we have to openly deploy them and train units in the use of them. They dun wait till the outbreak of war before releasing a new weapon system our "trained" troops know nothing about, of which it's quirks have not been tested in the field by the person whose opinion matters, the tankie. Introducing a new conventional weapons system (not covert secret weapons like the F-117) means quite a lot of media exposure, and exposure to the troops.
Saying that all weapons are the same and just focus on the training would be like saying everybody train in the M-16 and at the outbreak of war, suddenly issue SAR-21s out to everybody and expect them to use their M-16 training to fight effectively with the rifle! Even more so for tanks, if we had new advanced tanks, ours troops would be training in them now, and deployed widely so that our troops all know how to fight in them properly. What you are saying is that when war comes, they'll pluck you out from your SM1 and put you into a new tank you know nothing about and have no time to train in. Nonsense, anybody with common sense can tell you that!
The fact remains that, with our SM1 tanks, our armoured forces are outclassed and we remain reliant on our air support and other units that can only slow them down, not stop them for our anti-armour tatics. That is assuming we're defending. If we are attacking to take land to create defensive dept as the open secret of what Singapore is going to do in the event of war, can our SM1 tanks hopeful advance against ATGMs and MBTs?
Does Singapore have weapons systems they do not disclose? Probably yes, but only for those small scale deployment equipment, not as something as widespread as a tank!
all i can say is that, we do have other things, not what you think.
you can ask the regulars, but everyone has different clearance levels, so there are things regulars don't know.
and seriously i can't say anything more...
i'll end my discussion in this thread for now. -
So they are not aviable to regulars who make up the main bulk of Singapore's firepower.
I suppose they'll be as effective as Hitler's secret miracle weapons towards the end of World War 2. On which he promised their nonexistent salvation from the allied assault...
-
well, u can speculate.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:So they are not aviable to regulars who make up the main bulk of Singapore's firepower.
I suppose they'll be as effective as Hitler's secret miracle weapons towards the end of World War 2. On which he promised their nonexistent salvation from the allied assault...
enjoy
-
well, nearly every military has secrets... but i agree with the point that its pointless for your secrets to be so damn well hidden that nobody knows about it when u need it...
UNLESS of course, that there is a big enough group to work on it BUT a small enough group to still keep it hushed up... EVERYONE has HEARD of SOME rumours of THIS nature... RIGHT???
i exaggerate of course, but lets keep this discussion based on info available on the public domain.
not only should we not jeopardise security, but i'm sick and tired of people who come in here post, and say "but there are things YOU people don't know about but i can't say more "
if u can't openly state your knowledge of certain information, DON'T SAY U KNOW THEM! have the decency to keep up the pretence in a PUBLIC FORUM!
no point trying to show off and then try to back off when people ask for clarifications! u just look lame
-
thank you.Originally posted by CX:well, nearly every military has secrets... but i agree with the point that its pointless for your secrets to be so damn well hidden that nobody knows about it when u need it...
UNLESS of course, that there is a big enough group to work on it BUT a small enough group to still keep it hushed up... EVERYONE has HEARD of SOME rumours of THIS nature... RIGHT???
i exaggerate of course, but lets keep this discussion based on info available on the public domain.
not only should we not jeopardise security, but i'm sick and tired of people who come in here post, and say "but there are things YOU people don't know about but i can't say more "
if u can't openly state your knowledge of certain information, DON'T SAY U KNOW THEM! have the decency to keep up the pretence in a PUBLIC FORUM!
no point trying to show off and then try to back off when people ask for clarifications! u just look lame
show off is one thing.
security is another. -
We have to be careful with thinking that we may have the superios numbers over the existing "balance of armed numbers" in SE Asia.Originally posted by dkhoo:.................
However, as Atobe says, it is not about numbers, but how they are applied (though I think Atobe was arguing in the wrong direction -- we are the ones with the numbers).
........................
When comparing numbers, it is not just the effective numbers that are in the armed forces alone that is considered, we have to look also at the "Replacement or Additional Reinforcement Potential".
From a C.I.A. study of the Armed Forces of the World (see referenced web site below), the following equation should also be considered::
MALAYSIA
Population: 22,662,365 (61% in the 15 - 49 Yrs Age Group)
Military Manpower Available (15-49Yrs): 5,933,296
Military Manpower Fit for Armed Forces: 3,592,997
Military Manpower Reaching Military Age Annually: 196,042
Military Budget: USD 1.96 Billion
INDONESIA
Population: 231,328,092 (N.A.% 15 - 49 Yrs Age Group)
Military Manpower Available (15-49Yrs): 65,013,184
Military Manpower Fit for Armed Forces: 37,942,329
Military Manpower Reaching Military Age Annually: 2,263,706
Military Budget: USD 1.0 Billion
SINGAPORE:
Population: 4,452,732 (75.3% 15 - 49 Yrs Age Group)
Military Manpower Available (15-49Yrs): 1,354,857
Military Manpower Fit for Armed Forces: 986,101
Military Manpower Reaching Military Age Annually: N.A.
Military Budget: USD 4.47 Billion
Although the standing strength of the SAF Army maybe significantly larger in terms of numerical strength when compared to the Malaysian MAF; we are outnumbered by the Indoneisan TNI Army by a ratio of at least 10 to 1.
In terms of REPLACEMENT to the standing Army, the numbers above can be quite telling.
http://wps.cfc.dnd.ca/links/milorg/index.html -
While Indonesia has a very large number of landing ships, I am of the opinion that few of them are operable at a moments notice, most are poorly armed or carry no armament at all. It would be quite easy to take note of any possible military action by Indonesia.
-
i think it only helps to have a large population if u have a protracted war of attrition.Originally posted by Atobe:We have to be careful with thinking that we may have the superios numbers over the existing "balance of armed numbers" in SE Asia.
When comparing numbers, it is not just the effective numbers that are in the armed forces alone that is considered, we have to look also at the "Replacement or Additional Reinforcement Potential".
otherwise, the outcome would've been determined within hours, or days after the first shot has been fired... WAY before reinforcements can be mobilised or fresh troops can be trained to replace front line casualties.
Sg has chosen to build its military to fight this way... along the lines of the IAF... it is prudent because of some similarities between the 2 countries so ASSUMING that things go EXACTLY as planned upon the outbreak of war, it should be all wrapped up within weeks, if not days. in such a scenario, a large manpower potential won't matter if they cannot be forged into the tip of a spear immediately.
the problem, of course, is that NOTHING ever goes 100% according to plan. we could take out their frontline troops, warmaking capabilities and supporting economic infrastructures, we could use psychological warfare to undermine their civillian will to fight, but if they just refuse to give in and give up, we'll be stuck on a long road to nowhere and eventual destruction.
the mere threat of war will render this region USELESS for foreign investments and trade. i think this is Sg's ultimate achilles heels.
thats why like Sun Tzu said, war is FAILURE because it is preferable to achive one's aims through politics, diplomacy, espionage and deception, not outright war! -
[quote]
on thing about the LAW though... its crap...
i think if they HAVE to make infantrymen lug that stupid load around, it might as well be good for SOMETHING! its demoralising to know that the LAW cannot be used effectively against modern armour...
but u can't use it for an AP role as well cos the HEAT warhead won't generate the BIG explosion to maximise casualty in the open.
what are the chances of infantrymen meeting a jeep or some other soft-skinned vehicles which they MUST take out with a LAW??? totally bizarre if u ask me...
Let me clarify the use of LAW. This weapon was never designed or intended to be use against MBTs. The term Light Antitank Weapon is just an acronym for against armour, inclusive of light armoured vehicles. It was meant for APCs, AIFVs and light tanks such as our SM1s. For those guys out there who had been in the army, you should rememeber the instructor stressing this point; this is not for hitting MBTs!!! For MBTs, we got Milan 2 and Spike. Milan 2 may be a bit ineffective against tank with reactive armour, but still packs a punch though. And remember the Carl Gustav 84mm RR. Yes, i know it is cumbersome and heavy (I was the gunner for a few months) but it is effective against up to 3rd generation tanks. To use it against the PT91 or T84s, we just have to buy the latest round for this weapon, eg FFV-751, with tandem warhead for reactive armour.
For SM1s, its role in SAF has never been to go up against MBTs. When they were bought, there was never a threat from MBTs, only AFVs. Tanks in our doctrine were more for fire support, never to fight like the european terrain. We do not have wide plains like in Europe (believe me, I mean really WIDE). In this region, the only areas where you can see that FAR is the rice padi fields, and I don't think anybody is going to use tanks en-massed there. Cos they will be sitting ducks!!! I will simply put LSVs at the edge of these fields with Spike to utilise their range to the max.
Some posts here have compared My's MBTs (forthcoming) to our SM1s. Bearing in mind the terrain and tactics used, this is like comparing apple and orange. For those who have trained in jungle like terrain, you should know that traversing a turret with a long gun such as those on the MBTs would be almost impossible in a dense jungle with track roads.
Just my 2cents worth....(don't flame me) -
Originally posted by CX:
You are certainly right to mention Sun Tzu's wisdom that "War is FAILURE", and that "it is prefereable to achieve one's aims through politics, diplomacy, espionage and deception".
i think it only helps to have a large population if u have a protracted war of attrition.
otherwise, the outcome would've been determined within hours, or days after the first shot has been fired... WAY before reinforcements can be mobilised or fresh troops can be trained to replace front line casualties.
Sg has chosen to build its military to fight this way... along the lines of the IAF... it is prudent because of some similarities between the 2 countries so ASSUMING that things go EXACTLY as planned upon the outbreak of war, it should be all wrapped up within weeks, if not days. in such a scenario, a large [b]manpower potential won't matter if they cannot be forged into the tip of a spear immediately.
the problem, of course, is that NOTHING ever goes 100% according to plan. we could take out their frontline troops, warmaking capabilities and supporting economic infrastructures, we could use psychological warfare to undermine their civillian will to fight, but if they just refuse to give in and give up, we'll be stuck on a long road to nowhere and eventual destruction.
the mere threat of war will render this region USELESS for foreign investments and trade. i think this is Sg's ultimate achilles heels.
thats why like Sun Tzu said, war is FAILURE because it is preferable to achive one's aims through politics, diplomacy, espionage and deception, not outright war!
[/b]
It will be disastrous for Singapore to engage even in a short term war, and this will only occur if 'amargeddon' is forced onto this region by bellicose political leaders that refused to stand to reason, and push us into an unnegotiable corner, where our very existence is at stake.
With the sophistication and highly honed SAF Armed Forces, we can certainly win a short term war of a few days to a few weeks.
After that ? What next ?
It will be long term occupation of seized territories and hostile population.
Given such a circumstance, we have to consider the application of force on a huge population and large territory, all of which can EFFECT long term resistance to our occupation of their territory, and EXACT a high price on our small population.
Such resistance can be in the form of armed resistance or by duplicity in co-operation and sabotage against our SAF occupation force.
We cannot hope to occupy our neighbor's territory, but will act as a "liberating force", to reconstruct a new Government comprising of people that can work with us, and acceptable to both peoples. -
yes indeed... that is a point which many of us are familiar with, but none are willing to confront directly cos of its supposedly sensitive nature...Originally posted by Atobe:After that ? What next ?
It will be long term occupation of seized territories and hostile population.
Given such a circumstance, we have to consider the application of force on a huge population and large territory, all of which can EFFECT long term resistance to our occupation of their territory, and EXACT a high price on our small population.
Such resistance can be in the form of armed resistance or by duplicity in co-operation and sabotage against our SAF occupation force.
We cannot hope to occupy our neighbor's territory, but will act as a "liberating force", to reconstruct a new Government comprising of people that can work with us, and acceptable to both peoples.
in times of conflict, there'll always be winners AND losers... I do not believe in "war without victory"... IF war is EVER upon us, we fight to win... why else would we get into it?
but of course... like u asked, "what next?" ...
we will fight to maintain OUR freedom and way of life, but are we gonna oppress others in the process? what prices our freedom? what about the freedom of OTHERS?
i'm not comfortable with an oppressive (and expensive) occupation of land that is not rightfully ours, but would it hurt us more if we did not pre-empt possible threats since the immediate post-war period would be presumably unstable? would it justify a buffer zone occupied and policed by the victor of the conflict?
UN Peacekeepers? for how long? and when they leave? how effective would they be in maintaining order? (my guess? not very...)
its no wonder that nobody wants to contemplate war too seriously to settle such trivial problems. yes, i think that water and island are trivial. its nothing that careful diplomacy cannot solve.
and as for a collaborators' regime, i have serious doubts if that will be a viable option... firstly, they won't have popularity and credibility: 2 most important factors absolutely necessary to rebuild a shattered post-war nation. they will also LEAST likely have the muscle since the victor would have shattered them to begin with.
which brings us back to the point: are we gonna economically and militarily sponsor a collaborators' regime?
sigh... so many questions with no absolute answer in sight... -
Originally posted by CX:
Sun Tzu is right, if ever war occurs, it spells defeat already.
yes indeed... that is a point which many of us are familiar with, but none are willing to confront directly cos of its supposedly sensitive nature...
in times of conflict, there'll always be winners AND losers... I do not believe in "war without victory"... IF war is EVER upon us, we fight to win... why else would we get into it?
but of course... like u asked, "what next?" ...
we will fight to maintain OUR freedom and way of life, but are we gonna oppress others in the process? what prices our freedom? what about the freedom of OTHERS?
i'm not comfortable with an oppressive (and expensive) occupation of land that is not rightfully ours, but would it hurt us more if we did not pre-empt possible threats since the immediate post-war period would be presumably unstable? would it justify a buffer zone occupied and policed by the victor of the conflict?
UN Peacekeepers? for how long? and when they leave? how effective would they be in maintaining order? (my guess? not very...)
[b]its no wonder that nobody wants to contemplate war too seriously to settle such trivial problems. yes, i think that water and island are trivial. its nothing that careful diplomacy cannot solve.
and as for a collaborators' regime, i have serious doubts if that will be a viable option... firstly, they won't have popularity and credibility: 2 most important factors absolutely necessary to rebuild a shattered post-war nation. they will also LEAST likely have the muscle since the victor would have shattered them to begin with.
which brings us back to the point: are we gonna economically and militarily sponsor a collaborators' regime?
sigh... so many questions with no absolute answer in sight...
[/b]
In war, there can be no winners, only losers.
The victor may seemingly win the war, but at what cost in terms of own soldiers loss, equipment destroyed, economy stretched.
The defeated will lose even more in lives lost, dislocation of population, damage properties and economies.
Even if our SAF is to be victorious, we may not necessary wish to be oppressive in occupying temporarily any opponent's real estate; however, to instill law and order, martial laws will have to be implemented during the interim.
A new government need not behave as collaborators (as the Vichy French Government was seen to be collaborators to the Nazi Conquerors of France).
In a country such as Malaysia, where within UMNO itself there are so many factions, as well as the high level of discontentment amongst the other NON-Muslim Bumiputras and NON-Bumiputras, these communities will be only too happy to be given a helping hand to restore a new Administration of their own choosing.
Their constitution could be re-written by themselves, under our protection against any adamant and unreasonable demands put forth by the defeated UMNO - which had led in the defeated Government. This is similar to the Japanese reforming their government and writing a new constitutions after the defeat of the Militarists, and all this was done under the protection of the US Army that knocked down Japan. -
oh please! that IS collaboration!Originally posted by Atobe:Their constitution could be re-written by themselves, under our protection against any adamant and unreasonable demands put forth by the defeated UMNO - which had led in the defeated Government. This is similar to the Japanese reforming their government and writing a new constitutions after the defeat of the Militarists, and all this was done under the protection of the US Army that knocked down Japan.
and do u have ANY idea what an uneasy relationship the Japs had with Macarthur that time!
and u want to "protect" them with a military force so that they will draft a new constitution and form a new gov't friendly and acceptable (compliant?) to us... sounds like blackmail to me...
besides, the Japs and the Germans were more predisposed to cooperate after WW2 because it was a much longer and much more painful war, they are war weary, and they have been TOTALLY defeated and occupied...
in the hypothetical scenario that we're talking about, what i think is that it's gonna be an israeli-type quick victory by taking out the tip of their spear. not to mention that u only have time for that if u wanna keep it short.
so its not likely that we'll find dovish collaborators to work with us... they'll probably be screaming for blood and revenge after the initial defeat or they'll sue to peace, sit back and sulk, and plan their next strike. -
Hi CX, actually IF (BIG ONE) in the event of a war with Malaysia, and IF their armed forces is totally destroyed, UMNO would have lost its right to the leadership mantle in any new Government that is to be formed.
Granted that there will be some who will resent our presence, but we will work with those who are willing to rebuild the relationship with us, and allow us to return to status quo before the "war".
We could bring all the other Malaysians - who have felt themselves being discriminated for ethnic or political reasons and help them to rebuild a NEW Malaysia.
There are some Muslim Bumis who resented being sidelined and have not accepted UMNO's policies under the present leadership; and there are many NON-Muslim Bumis - (sons of the soil:- the native tribal people from the long houses of Sarawak, the native Kadazans and other tribes of Sabah) - all of whom are entitled to privileges but never benefitted from such a policy as much as the Muslim Bumis received.
With this catastrophic defeat, UMNO would have lost the moral right to lead the country, and a new political equation can perhaps be forged from an equal partnership of all political parties from Sabah to the smallest state of Perlis in Peninsula Malaysia.
Call it by any name, (collaboration is not such a dirty word, if they are collaborating with us for an honorable goal), our intent maybe self-serving, but the end result is mutually beneficial and honorable.
With one stroke, we knock out the crazy politics espoused by UMNO, and bring the vast number of "oppressed" Malaysians to the fore, to work with us. (Hints of War Crime Tribunals of crazy UMNO leaders..???)
Sabah and Sarawak have once expressed strong desires to leave Malaysia, and join us when we left in 1965 - (but putting the 3-'S' states together had an ominous ring to the name, so the idea was abandoned).
The one who was kicked out and got kicked around, have returned to kick 'arse', and reform for the sake of all in this region.
Who better qualified to lead in this role of reforming Malaysia then ourselves, who had experienced the bitter end of dirty politics played by UMNO ? (see footnote below)
This is poetic justice played to a deserving end.
Anyway, this is just wishful forum discussions.
You views concerning time, space, and manpower are correct, and your reasoned approach is not off the mark.
Footnote:
Perhaps this is the very reason for UMNO continuous tirade against Singapore and in particular against PAP rule - the fear is strong, and the reaction speaks volume. -
Where on earth did you get those facts fromOriginally posted by Atobe:Sabah and Sarawak have once expressed strong desires to leave Malaysia, and join us when we left in 1965 - (but putting the 3-'S' states together had an ominous ring to the name, so the idea was abandoned).
Can you state the source -
oi, support SG lah! NDU! lol!Originally posted by Spetznaz:HOOYAH!!!!!
for NAVYSEALS dun QUIT!!!!!
"The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday"
"De Oppresso Liber"
"HOOYAH!!!!!"
anyway...to previous posts...
LAW wasn't designed to pierce anything...
its to cripple armour, we shoot then run n leave it to our armour to take it down.
and if u think SG doesn't have MBTs... hmmmmm... well, i'm happy u think that way -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
The people of the Pentagon ranked SAF the best in the S.E.Asia region.[/quote]
Better then MAF... and RMN ......
Singapore has the largest airpower quantity and quality in the region.
(But some are retiring and some are based overseas...)
One of the technology SAF needs is to design a camoflage uniform for the green jungle as well as for the urban jungle. Singapore's getting very urbanised.
Anyway I was wondering whether our Lion City's "Garden City" plans and drainage systems are part of our national defence.
Singapore soldiers hiding behind wayside trees and greeneries and instant foxholes made out of our drains.
The term National Service is just a nicer name for conscription with pensions, of course! But beware Singapore soldiers will not be fighting like Soviet conscripts in WWII, we're armed and READY!
We should have B-52 bombers standards in SIA fleets which it can help during war -
Read LKY Memoirs - which referred to the political events of those days.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:Where on earth did you get those facts from Can you state the source
Also the Straits Times Archives circa 1966-1968.
Actually, LKY was skeptical that a new union of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore can even have a slimmest chance of success, given the wide expanse of the South-China Sea that is between us, and which is largely in Malaysian and Indonesian territories. -
LAW carries a HEAT warhead that is designed to pierce a small hold in armour and fry the crew inside.Originally posted by kopiosatu:oi, support SG lah! NDU! lol!
anyway...to previous posts...
LAW wasn't designed to pierce anything...
its to cripple armour, we shoot then run n leave it to our armour to take it down.
and if u think SG doesn't have MBTs... hmmmmm... well, i'm happy u think that way
now, modern armour (especially those recently purchased up north) with composite armour and other new counter-measures have rendered HEAT warheads obsolete.
if u shoot an armbrust at an armoured vehicle equipped with modern armour, u'll just see a small poof and the tank pointing its gun at u.
u'll be lucky to achieve a mobility kill and that still leaves u at the mercy of its co-axial mgs and its main gun. -
look, we do NOT aim at the armour!Originally posted by CX:LAW carries a HEAT warhead that is designed to pierce a small hold in armour and fry the crew inside.
now, modern armour (especially those recently purchased up north) with composite armour and other new counter-measures have rendered HEAT warheads obsolete.
if u shoot an armbrust at an armoured vehicle equipped with modern armour, u'll just see a small poof and the tank pointing its gun at u.
u'll be lucky to achieve a mobility kill and that still leaves u at the mercy of its co-axial mgs and its main gun.
have u gone through LAW training?
u are supposed to hit its weak points, which is either the tracks, or the joint -
Aiming at a weak point on a tank, anybody knows that's too chancy to base your entirte anti-tank capabity on... It's like going to hunt elephants with nothing but a colt .45 and aiming for the eye...
-
do you even know what's the LAW for? Do you know how to use a LAW properly? Do you know the tactics we employ with a LAW?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Aiming at a weak point on a tank, anybody knows that's too chancy to base your entirte anti-tank capabity on... It's like going to hunt elephants with nothing but a colt .45 and aiming for the eye...
its not use to take out tanks. the LAW wasn't designed to take out armour in the first place. -
u're not the only person here who has been through NS... don't act as if everybody dunno anything and everything u say is right.Originally posted by kopiosatu:do you even know what's the LAW for? Do you know how to use a LAW properly? Do you know the tactics we employ with a LAW?
its not use to take out tanks. the LAW wasn't designed to take out armour in the first place.
weak point of a tank? please... with a weapon like THAT, first thing i do when i see an MBT is HIDE! jeep, rovers, trucks, APC and other variety of soft skinned vehicles, MAYBE... MBT? screw u...
if we're issued with the SPIKE SR, then i'll take my chances and take out the sucker cos there's a fair chance it can take out the composite or reactive armour with its tandem warhead. with an armbrust? no way. you'll be wasting your time and your life.
like i said... u'll be DAMN lucky to achieve a mobility kill with a LAW and the MBT can still shoot u even if it cannot move.
and the joint between the turret and the chasis is like... what? 5? 10cm? u think the tank sit there quietly there wait for u to shoot him ah?
its one thing to be brave and well versed in the use of the weapons issued u, but if a weapon has limitations, then we have to know its limitations so we don't waste ammo and lives in the field. -
have u ever learnt how to shoot its tracksOriginally posted by CX:u're not the only person here who has been through NS... don't act as if everybody dunno anything and everything u say is right.
weak point of a tank? please... with a weapon like THAT, first thing i do when i see an MBT is HIDE! jeep, rovers, trucks, APC and other variety of soft skinned vehicles, MAYBE... MBT? screw u...
if we're issued with the SPIKE SR, then i'll take my chances and take out the sucker cos there's a fair chance it can take out the composite or reactive armour with its tandem warhead. with an armbrust? no way. you'll be wasting your time and your life.
like i said... u'll be DAMN lucky to achieve a mobility kill with a LAW and the MBT can still shoot u even if it cannot move.
and the joint between the turret and the chasis is like... what? 5? 10cm? u think the tank sit there quietly there wait for u to shoot him ah?
its one thing to be brave and well versed in the use of the weapons issued u, but if a weapon has limitations, then we have to know its limitations so we don't waste ammo and lives in the field.
we are not going to use any of our infantry weapons to take out an MBT.
we've got our own to take them out