guards light strike vehicles
-
to foxtrout8:
hi bro i dun noe if u r a military analyst or simply bright but u haf been pretty spot on , on the ops...but contain the excitment man..alrite? 
all's cool
-
ThX , i think im jus lucky......Originally posted by ah san:to foxtrout8: hi bro i dun noe if u r a military analyst or simply bright but u haf been pretty spot on , on the ops...but contain the excitment man..alrite?
all's cool -
Stupid LSV is a deathtrap, dun be caught in one.
-
Dude...new form of warfare requires new ways of thinking...tanks were once regarded as deathtraps in the old days too...commanders were suspicious of it, and didn't see any use as compared to 'over-the-top' infantry charges. What we've got in the end was wanton slaughter for nothing in WWI.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Stupid LSV is a deathtrap, dun be caught in one.
The LSV is a good concept. I would disagree that its a deathtrap. Surprise is its tactical advantage. If a column of armoured vehicles are caught by surprise by an LSV company, the enemy tanks, APCs/IFVs would be the deathtraps instead.
LSVs are not designed for a head-on charge...that would make it a deathtrap...
According to the simulations that I'm playing out for my thesis, LSVs would be able to inflict a very favourable kill ratio, in return for one of their own. All this is based on surprise, stealth agility. Given the nature of our terrain, LSVs might prove to be a formidable battle opponent that enemy armour would face....in conection to a combined-arms ops I mean... -
Still I dun like the idea of a return burst of random maching gun fire killing the entire crew, that's a serious defiency...
-
Still I dun like the idea of a return burst of random machine gun fire killing the entire crew, that's a serious defiency...
-
Still I dun like the idea of a return burst of random machine gun fire killing the entire crew, that's a serious defiency...
-
Still I dun like the idea of a return burst of random machine gun fire killing the entire crew, that's a serious defiency...
-
pls lah i noe ur damn garang lah...pls dun repeat ur post..Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Still I dun like the idea of a return burst of random maching gun fire killing the entire crew, that's a serious defiency...
i also noe ur more smart den the DSTA pple..or even defence scienctist...can relac abit boh
i help u tok to Tony Tan abt tis..ok? on boh SAF most garang man?
-
lol~!Originally posted by NathanG5:pls lah i noe ur damn garang lah...pls dun repeat ur post..
i also noe ur more smart den the DSTA pple..or even defence scienctist...can relac abit boh
i help u tok to Tony Tan abt tis..ok? on boh SAF most garang man?
war won't get shot at and die one... -
The LSV is meant to be a weapons platform for the battalion support weapons in Guards units. It provides support fire for the battalion, performs block missions, among others, as well. It is not meant to be tank. In all the exercises I've been in, I have never seen the battalion support company charge at the enemy. They are always supporting the line companies in the battalion operation, not the other way round.
In other countries, (Eg. Australia, Germany, Malaysia, UK, etc), heavy battalion support weapons for Infantry units are usually mounted on soft-skinned vehicles like the Land Rover.
Only in mechanised or armoured units are armoured weapons platform found. The French, for example mount their milans ATGM on their VBL vehicles in mechanised units. In short, light infantry units are not armoured and do not normally have armoured vehicles.
The LSV is a good vehicle for its intended role (light infantry unit, air mobile or RDF role). It is better than the Land Rover or G wagon found in average infantry units around the world. As for comparisons to the US 101st Div - they have more airlift than the whole RSAF put together. -
I can understand your concerns and views of the LSV having no "amour" protection and yes I do agree that there is a big chance of the crew getting killed when fired upon.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Still I dun like the idea of a return burst of random machine gun fire killing the entire crew, that's a serious defiency...
But war being war, you should not be expecting that all the soldiers that you sent to the front will return.
As mentioned in other treads, the intention and purpose of the LSV is NOT to go head on against an amoured unit. The LSV is a unique vehicle and has roles and operations that required such a vehicle. No commander in their right sense of mind would just send in the LSVs alone against amoured unit without expecting some serious losses.
A little scenario to maybe help improve your views on the LSVs.
Our amoured unit is currently engaged in battle with the enemy armoured unit, tanks exchanging fires with the IFV in support. The conventional tanks vs tanks scenario. WIth your LSVs' speed, they could manuvuer to an position that allows them to fire their Spike missiles and assist in the clean of the enemy unit. Remember, you do not need a LOS to fire the Spike.
In this scene, the LSVs are quite same considering the enemy unit will be busy trying to take out the armoured unit that they are currently engaging. To further add on... if the enemy tank commander can "see" your missile flying towards them, then your missile is traveling at an awfully slow speed 
... and if they can see you firing at them, then you have chosen an awfully weak firing point and deserve to be shot at. (No offense intended) 
-
I think bcoy is absolutely correct. The LSVs are certainly faster, lighter and more capable than the other soft-skinned vehicles they replace. They are 21st Century jeeps. I think that if they had simply released the LSV with a version that had no weapons, people would have understood what it was ("infantry support vehicle", "fast armed transport" ) and there would have been no complaints. But because they only released armed versions, people immediately think "fighting vehicle" or even "tank".
Don't forget that Guardmen also fight dismounted. If the situation is not right for the LSV, they can leave it someplace, pick up their personal weapons and fight as infantry. The LSVs are not tanks and Guardsmen are not tankees. Even if the LSV were completely unarmed they would be useful, simply to give the dismounted guardsment more mobility and allow them to carry more supplies and ammunition.
As for speed not being a form of protection, the LSVs use their mobility to choose the battleground and to choose the enemy. As long as the LSV is not forced into battle, it can always fight in ground that favors itself and with enemies that cannot strike it back. For example, it can sit on a hill and tear up infantry with the GPMG from 800m away where they cannot shoot back. If the infantry manages to get closer, the LSV just escapes behind the hill. Or it can pop a Spike into a tank at 2-3 km range. By the time the tanks locate the little dot on the horizon and lay their guns on its position, the LSV is gone. The LSV will probably seek to bully infantry and play hit and run with armor, playing to all its strengths and their weaknesses.
The problem is that this all hinges on the LSV having the initiative and good intel. The LSV will die instantly in an ambush (but so will anything else, even an Abrams MBT). The LSV will die instantly if it is engaged at close range by an unexpected foe. If the LSV is forced to fight defensively, it will also die since it cannot hold ground (hence the "strike" part of the name). So the Guardsmen have to be really on the ball and "ready to strike".
Could the LSV be improved? The current LSV design is a compromise that takes into account many factors like available RSAF airlift capacity, technology and cost. I think it is a nearly optimal design given the current situation, though the situation can change. For example, if the RSAF had more heavy lift helicopters, we could field a heavier LSV with armor. But it might be less mobile and consume more fuel
So it is hard to say.
So count me as a supporter of the LSV. -
Super Hamster Warrior -
a bit off topic, but how does the Spike home in on the target if its not guided ?Originally posted by SCAR:Remember, you do not need a LOS to fire the Spike.
Is laser being used for target acquisition ? -
There are two mode of firing , u can guided it by wire thus it can perform NLOS mission. Or if u can see and lock the target so the better as Spike can be fired and forget.Originally posted by observe:a bit off topic, but how does the Spike home in on the target if its not guided ?
Is laser being used for target acquisition ?
U can use the charge coupled device seeker for daytime firing or the Infra-red sensor for night firing for target accquisition. -
how does the CCD works ?Originally posted by foxtrout8:There are two mode of firing , u can guided it by wire thus it can perform NLOS mission. Or if u can see and lock the target so the better as Spike can be fired and forget.
U can use the charge coupled device seeker for daytime firing or the Infra-red sensor for night firing for target accquisition.
What if after target had been locked and fired, the target then fires smoke grenades....will spike still be able to home-in, since the image on the CCD would be different from the stored image.
Any laser being used, if not for target acquisition, how about range finder ? -
The LSV, IMO, is best suited for hit-and-run tactics. It is also a good transport vehicles for light airborne forces, essentially the Guards units. It can also be employ for recce missions, somewhat like the Australian SAS forces (except they use a 6x6 wheels Range Rover).
The use of buggys like the LSV was popularised by US Delta and other special forces. LSV was never meant for real full frontal fighting. It will be too easy to take a couple of them with rifle rounds, hand grenades or even, on the extreme, RPGs.
If, however, they are employ as a hit-and-run vehicles, it would be excellent because of their mobility, agility and speed. Basically, the poor guards would have to do a high speed shoot and scoot and hope that the enemies are hit bad enuff to return fire or would have to take too long before they can return fire. The LSVs would have long been gone and fight another day. LSVs can also hunt in "wolfpack" tactics where they hit the enemies very hard in a pack and then run. Since these LSVs are decently armed with ATGMs, AGLs and HMGs, I can see them doing quite a fair bit of damage.
Lastly, does anyone know why SAF rejected the French VBLs? I read that a couple was brought into Singapore for trial during the mid 90s together with the AMX-10s. However, they were not being purchased. Just interested to know what the reason behind the decision.... -
Too expensive? Not adaptable enough? Maybe because its French. lol.
-
hi guys, i understand u all r pretty excited abt the LSV but could we be a little more discreet
...esp abt the tactics part...for it's obvious from what i haf been seeing either some of u haf gone thru LSV training or simply brilliant tactians cos ur r very close ..too close to the "real deal" with the rite terms used...
i've got nothing against discussion, but juz be careful alrite?
cheers,
P.S. i maybe unsure of the LSV clearance level now but i feel tactics should be best kept secret... -
thats new......last i heard they missed cuz their wire broke on the range.......oh well i guess they upgraded it nowOriginally posted by foxtrout8:There are two mode of firing , u can guided it by wire thus it can perform NLOS mission. Or if u can see and lock the target so the better as Spike can be fired and forget.
U can use the charge coupled device seeker for daytime firing or the Infra-red sensor for night firing for target accquisition. -
Originally posted by |-|05|:thats new......last i heard they missed cuz their wire broke on the range.......oh well i guess they upgraded it now hmm in that case..............sway lor.
But it least u can still fire LOS , if NLOS....then cannot liao , maybe thats a lucky day for the enemy then.....
-
If not mistaken, I think the wire is actually a fibre optic cable cause I don't think wire has bandwidth to carry video. Rather delicate stuff.
thats new......last i heard they missed cuz their wire broke on the range.......oh well i guess they upgraded it now -
Media industries are using fibre-optic cables which can perform a data link of real time image.Originally posted by buzz:If not mistaken, I think the wire is actually a fibre optic cable cause I don't think wire has bandwidth to carry video. Rather delicate stuff.