Any role for Terrex in SAF?
-
i am sure tat u r right...better in like how much?Originally posted by thomasct:FYI , V-200 have BETTER amour protection than M113 .
i wont trust a vehicle tat SAF bought it for US$1...
n it kill more soldier when it overturn when the driver tryin to do a Initial-D kinda turn...more soldiers die of broken neck den bullet wound...
hey guys its US$1...
-
My Dear Nathan,Originally posted by NathanG5:i am sure tat u r right...better in like how much?
i wont trust a vehicle tat SAF bought it for US$1...
n it kill more soldier when it overturn when the driver tryin to do a Initial-D kinda turn...more soldiers die of broken neck den bullet wound...
hey guys its US$1...
We talking about V-200 Commando , then I am
with your comments especially the following
Which SAF vehicle that you are talking about
"" it kill more soldier when it overturn when the driver tryin to do a Initial-D kinda turn... ""
"".more soldiers die of broken neck den bullet wound.. ""
"" i wont trust a vehicle tat SAF bought it for US$1... ""
Before I reply, let confirm that we are talking about the same vehicle
-
Originally posted by thomasct:
no lah actually im toking abt Nissan Skyline
Which SAF vehicle that you are talking about
Before I reply, let confirm that we are talking about the same vehicle [/b]
im toking abt V-200...unless u have some story of ur own?
ur frm Cdos? errrr...wat im suppose to do now? scared witless? im a RP frm certain base
so now let me hear ur side of the story?? u been to orlikon gun live firing? -
That's pretty misleading actually.Originally posted by |-|05|:Very true......tracks wear out really really fast.Which is why the are usually transported on flatbeds.Each track i believe only has a life span of some 300km before it needs to be replaced.While wheels have a life span of something like 1000km or maybe even more!!
In peacetime conditions and driving straight like tour coaches tires are more economical. However once you stick them in the field in actual battlefield conditions like mud, sad and uneven terrain. The lifespan of tires falls dramatically. In desert exercises, Marine LAV25 wheel clocked 2 changes twice a week! Tires are vulnerable to abuse with tracks shrug off.
Plus, tracks are more easily repairable and replacable then tires. For tires, the whole thing is condemmed, the modular construction of tracks makes replacing them in battlefield attrition rates, far more useful, coupled with their durability, makes them the locomotion of choice. -
Was responding to the part about using them on roads and such.Besides like mentioned in tracks the rubber padding can be replaced,the chain links welded back together.Oh and you are also quite misleading.....everything wears out really fast in the desert which is why everyone hates itOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:That's pretty misleading actually.
In peacetime conditions and driving straight like tour coaches tires are more economical. However once you stick them in the field in actual battlefield conditions like mud, sad and uneven terrain. The lifespan of tires falls dramatically. In desert exercises, Marine LAV25 wheel clocked 2 changes twice a week! Tires are vulnerable to abuse with tracks shrug off.
Plus, tracks are more easily repairable and replacable then tires. For tires, the whole thing is condemmed, the modular construction of tracks makes replacing them in battlefield attrition rates, far more useful, coupled with their durability, makes them the locomotion of choice.
-
Aye, it's you who misleads yourself due to your general ignorance of the whole situtation.
Of course everything wears our pretty fast in the desert. But the main question here is at what rate. Multi tonned wheeled units like the nonsense LAV-25 require almost constant replacing of their tires not to mention that ocassional overhaul of their overstressed delicate suspension and drive trains. In a worst case seneriao, good tracks can wistand up to three months in the desert before you really have to replace them, as all armored forces that have fought in the desert has found out.
In terms of battlefield replacability and recoverability, plus reliability, tracks certainly make it far better then tires. -
Gentlemen, the debate between tires and tracks have gone on since the beginning when the track was "invented" as an alternative to the tired wheels.
The track was supposed to perform as a "portable or movable" road for the set of wheels that is carried within the track.
This is ideal for soft ground that allows the load of the vehicle to spread over a wider load bearing surface area that the track provide.
Compared to the tires, which has a small contact surface area with the ground, the track certainly is superior in soft ground with the large surface area in contact with the ground.
With new design development that allow the possibility of inflating (for better weight carrying and speed manoeverability), or deflating (to improve ground bearing pressure) the rubber tires while on the move, it has open new possibilities in the use of tires for armoured vehicles to overcome soft ground conditions.
However, in conditions like sand, both becomes quite vulnerable.
The track links are subject to accelerated wear of the sand, while the rubber tires can stand up better to the wearing of the sand.
The weak link of the tired wheel is the sand wearing the steering ball-joints of the wheeled vehicles.
In very soft ground, the rubber tires can loose traction despite the deep grooves on the tires; while the tracks provide better bite onto the very soft ground as it "creates" its own road condition for the wheels in the tracks.
In terms of vulnerability to explosive effects, when the tracked vehicle has its tracks blown out, it becomes useless; while in a multi-wheeled vehicle, the remaining wheels (of a 6 or 8 wheeled vehichle) will remain mobile.
Incidentally, bullet proof rubber tires are available, and consist of a multiple tubes (of the size of bicycle tubes) molded as a whole, but are seperate tubular design.
Any single bullet travelling on a straight path, will puncture those few tubes in its path, with the remaining tubes undamage, and still performing the designed tasks.
Rubber tires allow long distance travelling at very high speed and somewhat lower noise than the speed limitation and endurance of the tracks.
So depending on intended operational conditions, each has its own designed purposes and advantageous. -
Yep what i wanted to say.Originally posted by Atobe:Gentlemen, the debate between tires and tracks have gone on since the beginning when the track was "invented" as an alternative to the tired wheels.
The track was supposed to perform as a "portable or movable" road for the set of wheels that is carried within the track.
This is ideal for soft ground that allows the load of the vehicle to spread over a wider load bearing surface area that the track provide.
Compared to the tires, which has a small contact surface area with the ground, the track certainly is superior in soft ground with the large surface area in contact with the ground.
With new design development that allow the possibility of inflating (for better weight carrying and speed manoeverability), or deflating (to improve ground bearing pressure) the rubber tires while on the move, it has open new possibilities in the use of tires for armoured vehicles to overcome soft ground conditions.
However, in conditions like sand, both becomes quite vulnerable.
The track links are subject to accelerated wear of the sand, while the rubber tires can stand up better to the wearing of the sand.
The weak link of the tired wheel is the sand wearing the steering ball-joints of the wheeled vehicles.
In very soft ground, the rubber tires can loose traction despite the deep grooves on the tires; while the tracks provide better bite onto the very soft ground as it "creates" its own road condition for the wheels in the tracks.
In terms of vulnerability to explosive effects, when the tracked vehicle has its tracks blown out, it becomes useless; while in a multi-wheeled vehicle, the remaining wheels (of a 6 or 8 wheeled vehichle) will remain mobile.
Incidentally, bullet proof rubber tires are available, and consist of a multiple tubes (of the size of bicycle tubes) molded as a whole, but are seperate tubular design.
Any single bullet travelling on a straight path, will puncture those few tubes in its path, with the remaining tubes undamage, and still performing the designed tasks.
Rubber tires allow long distance travelling at very high speed and somewhat lower noise than the speed limitation and endurance of the tracks.
So depending on intended operational conditions, each has its own designed purposes and advantageous. -
In theory people have proposed that multi-tired units can still be mobile following the loss of wheels while tracks will be disabled and useless. Hence wheeled units will take less losses from mobility kills.
However in pratice this has proven otherwise. While tracked units are obviously vulnerable to losing tracks, the actual damage taken when a track is blown off or road wheel destroyed is usually salvagable. On the other hand, the superstructure of wheeled units tend to take extensive damage following the loss of the wheel, and while the unit might be able to limp back to base, there is a great percentage of the time that it will be a write off from the damage taken.
This is assuming the multi-ton wheeled unit does not write itself off by throwing it's own wheels doing high speed manuvers, which has destroyed quite a bit of LAV-25 by drivetrain damage and in some cases flipping following the loss of the wheel.
Of course, tracks themselves take up a smaller profile on the unit, are less vulnerable to small arms and permit an optimised armour geometry to give the unit maximum protection. Wheeled units have large, easily targeted wheels on their side, interfere with hull geometry, and result in a high-cg, tall profile, unstable, under armoured unit that flips at easily overturns at high speed or trying to avoid stray dogs.
If anything, losses from mobility kills are higher in wheeled units then in tracked ones. -
Hey all,
I think i'd better say something before this degrades into another 'wheels or tracks' argument gets too intense.
My purpose of starting this topic was to discuss any possible use for the Terrex within the SAF's orbat. There seems little use of arguing about the pros and cons of wheels and tracks within these parameters since the SAF has already shown an overall preference to using tracks, as evidenced by the development and purchase of vehicles such as the Bionix and Bronco, and the continued use of other tracked equipment, despite any arguments about the advantages that a wheeled platform might provide.
In any case, my intention was to discuss about any periphery roles that wheeled armoured vehicles could play in the SAF, aside from central armoured roles which have already been taken up by tracked units in the SAF. Some suggestions have been interesting such as home security and peacekeeping, which are probably seen to be more low-intensity in nature. I had a friend even suggest mounting a multiple anti-air rocket launcher system similar to the air defense version of the LAV.
My point is that perhaps we could concentrate on weaponry and configurations instead of whacking each other over the head with arguments over tracks or wheels. I am not for or against tracks or wheels. The fact is that the SAF likes (or, at least, appears to like) tracks in central roles. -
APC - 25mm cannon/7.62mm MG or 40mm GL/12.7mm MG
Command - extra radios and more space, plus 7.62mm MG.
Recon - ground surveillance radar plus special optical equipment and radios. 7.62mm MG
Ambulance - medical team vehicle, medical equipment plus 7.62mm MG.
Recovery vehicle - for the mechanics.
Artillery observation vehicle - similar to recon vehicle, with artillery radar.
Air Defense - various SAM mounts and guns.
Mortar carrier - 81mm/120mm mortar
Mobile gun - 90mm/105mm gun mounts
ATGM - Spike ATGM vehicle.
Heavy duty anti-riot vehicle (South Korea may be interested) -
yeah.. I'm from the ASU. OC V200's Gunner. Group 2 'D' COY.Originally posted by bcoy:You from ASU? or Air Force?
For smokers - at least the damm thing won't catch fire so easily with a diesel engine.
And the vehicle doesn't qualify as amphibious anymore or is it?
Something I forgot to mentioned in the earlier post; they give the V200 a nice auto transmission. Good for the drivers. Just step on the gas and go.. -
Amphibious? I 'll be first to get ass out of the vehicleOriginally posted by bcoy:And the vehicle doesn't qualify as amphibious anymore or is it? -
Hey , they change the turret of the gun right?? I saw it in PLAB , if im not wrong , the triangular enlonged piece is the gun right??Originally posted by Paladin:yeah.. I'm from the ASU. OC V200's Gunner. Group 2 'D' COY.
Something I forgot to mentioned in the earlier post; they give the V200 a nice auto transmission. Good for the drivers. Just step on the gas and go.. -
and I'm one of the guys that ride around in your unit's vehicles. But I don't think we'll be doing that anymore - only 2 day type ICTs remaining - ROD soon I hope.Originally posted by Paladin:yeah.. I'm from the ASU. OC V200's Gunner. Group 2 'D' COY.
Something I forgot to mentioned in the earlier post; they give the V200 a nice auto transmission. Good for the drivers. Just step on the gas and go.. -
Err our M-113s n Bx tracks DONT have rubber coating to do that. I've seen the roads after an M113 pass by, i feel the thread marks and i am telling you, I have never seen a more grinded down road in my life. It was grinded SMOOTH.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Your knowledge of the true nature of tracked locomotion appears to be inaccucrate. For a matter of fact, tracks are not significantly more damaging on roads then wheeled units. Even going at full tilt on a road, a 60 ton Abrams tank does not leave concrete spall in its wake, even when it slams the brakes that brings it to a halt from 60kph to 0 in 10 meters. As a matter of fact, with their lower ground pressure and rolling resistance, velocities, rubber padded tracks are actually less straining on aspalt then wheeled units.
Also, this is proven all the more during SAF open house where they had Bionixes tear down normal roads during joyrides with no problem.
We can have tracked units tear up and down our runways with little problem. The idea that tracks are bad on roads is a misconception. The real reason why we transport them on trailers is far more logical, and pratical. It saves wear and tear on these expensive units, and it isn't really wise to drive from the limited vision confines of an AFV in peacetime unless they really have to. What if they ran over ah ma because they could not see her? It's far safer and cheaper to transport them on HETs... -
Yes, they do. The M113s and BXs have rubber paddings on their tracks. But the rubber wears out quite easily and tracks are always expensive and a bitch to replace so it's not unusal to see vehicles moving along on worn out, almost rubberless tracks.Originally posted by Shotgun:Err our M-113s n Bx tracks DONT have rubber coating to do that. I've seen the roads after an M113 pass by, i feel the thread marks and i am telling you, I have never seen a more grinded down road in my life. It was grinded SMOOTH.
They still work fine but they tear up roads like nobody's business. With the rubber, you would see anything, just look at the NSPs where there are mobile columns. -
Yes, they do. The M113s and BXs have rubber paddings on their tracks. But the rubber wears out quite easily and tracks are always expensive and a bitch to replace so it's not unusal to see vehicles moving along on worn out, almost rubberless tracks.Originally posted by Shotgun:Err our M-113s n Bx tracks DONT have rubber coating to do that. I've seen the roads after an M113 pass by, i feel the thread marks and i am telling you, I have never seen a more grinded down road in my life. It was grinded SMOOTH.
They still work fine but they tear up roads like nobody's business. With the rubber, you would see anything, just look at the NDPs where there are mobile columns. -
Actually the tracks do have rubber pads. I've seen some come off the tracks, lying around the training grounds sometimes.
-
come on guys.... have some faith in our armoured vehicles...
im armour trained n i happened to come across some classified stuff during trainin n during my stay n mindef...
so all i can say is... our armour units are really fearsome... -
GHoST_18 is right. There are still quite a lot of black programmes in the SAF. I think what is declared or revealed is just the bare minimum. Have faith in the SAF!
-
Given the SAF is becoming more involved in peackeeping missions in recent years, a well armored and affordable APC procured in small numbers is a good investment. Being lightweight, they won't get bogged down in loose sands or get stuck in mud and can be airlifted. Being boxy, they offer good ergonomics and load carrying capability. Being tame looking, APCs will not be percieved by the local populace as being "threatening" unlike other armored vehicles and will be a lesser choice of sabotage and perception of peacekeepers will be more favorable.
Now the question is, is the Terrax all that? I won't deny the second attribute and the last. But what of cost, protection and weight? -
Perhaps one of the most 'unthreatening' wheeled vehicle is the LSV, which used by our peacekeepers in Timor Leste. Given the low tactical threat level in the mostly rural area they're patrolling, i guess it's ok to use such an open vehicle. Besides, it's good PR too, it was seen on tv how the peacekeepers would give out combat rations to kids as they were passing thru'. The low profile and openness of the LSV makes the peacekeepers 'accessible'. Of course, this is both good and bad.Originally posted by Laplace:Given the SAF is becoming more involved in peackeeping missions in recent years, a well armored and affordable APC procured in small numbers is a good investment. Being lightweight, they won't get bogged down in loose sands or get stuck in mud and can be airlifted. Being boxy, they offer good ergonomics and load carrying capability. Being tame looking, APCs will not be percieved by the local populace as being "threatening" unlike other armored vehicles and will be a lesser choice of sabotage and perception of peacekeepers will be more favorable.
Now the question is, is the Terrax all that? I won't deny the second attribute and the last. But what of cost, protection and weight?
Whether the APC or the terrex would be perceived as threatening would then depend on the situation. In Timor Leste, the civilians there view the UN peacekeepers favorably. But as y'all know, if we send peacekeepers to iraq - i don't think patrolling in an LSV would be a sane idea. (I mean, for all the totalitarian tendencies of saddam, i still find it amazing he allowed his people to bear arms - maybe it's part of the arab culture. That fat bastard in DPRK would never have allowed that).
On the subject of being 'threatening' - personally i believe if peacekeepers are bent on showing goodwill to the civilians, a wheeled vehicle would be a good idea. Just the very sound of an armour tank or carrier engine roaring and metal tracks tearing down the road would be enough to give me goosebumps -
From the Straits Times
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/singapore/story/0,4386,212404,00.html?
S'pore, Turkish firms in vehicle project
A SINGAPORE company has teamed up with a Turkish automaker to develop and market two armoured vehicles for Turkey's armed forces.
Singapore Technologies Kinetics, part of listed ST Engineering company, and Otokar have agreed to work together and will sign two cooperation agreements today at a defence, aerospace and maritime show in Ankara, Turkey.
The companies will collaborate on the design and manufacture of the second Terrex 8x8 vehicle prototype. The first prototype, developed solely by ST Kinetics, can carry up to 11 tonnes while providing full nuclear, biological and chemical protection.
Like its predecessor, the second Terrex will be able to withstand rough terrain and harsh climatic conditions. It will be called the Yavuz, the name of an Ottoman sultan, and is scheduled to be handed over to the Turkish land forces for trials next year.
Otokar will also help ST Kinetics market the Bronco All-Terrain Tracked Vehicle, which will be known as the Sakarya in Turkish. It is being used by the Singapore Armed Forces. Said Otokar general manager Kudret Onen: 'Otokar's experience in the design and production of armoured vehicles with state-of-the-art equipment and ST Kinetics' know-how will make the Yavuz and Sakarya very successful projects.' -
Got some info from net about the AV81 Terrex, the report was dated 2001:
1. ST are working on a Howitzer version.
2. It has removable roof for any modular adaptation for any turret (up to 105mm) or mortar system.
3. It V shaped double floor that could withstand a12kg TNT blast.
You could read yourself from this website on the world AFV
http://www.armada.ch/01-6/complete.pdf