WITs suggestion to the SAF anyone?
-
i get wat u mean. its jus like the normal webbing except it has no poncho pouch? its for the arty and cbt engr ppl, and as u mentioned mabbe the armour as well. those travelling on veh i guess. so no need poncho.Originally posted by laurence82:Yes the one commonly used we all know.
However the "unorthodox' one is actually a standard item only in certain units. In fact my friends were issued it from their own unit at their enlistments. Different units, different needs I guess.
I ask for the rationale of that type. Because its really a skeletal SBO, with only two water bottle pouches and one big pouch for poncho, my friend said thats as Combat Engineers, they require less small accessories and gears than infantry guys.
In fact I heard it is also used by armour guys, but I cant confirm.
Not only the design, but the material appears thicker and more robust than our standard ones. -
the webbing now is already using clips rather than velcro. tts for the centre.Originally posted by Icemoon:Can suggest removing the velcro and replacing it with clips
perhaps can suggest something else along this line: all the shoulder straps are attached to the webbing itself by manual winding. alot of us bought clips to replace tt for convenience. mabbe they can make the clips std instead of the normal design. -
hm.. pardon me for asking, but how come u can be posting here at 1 am den?Originally posted by kAdEn:I'm from the rifle coy
-
Yes it is with holes.Originally posted by Icemoon:Yes, this SBO belt is seen on the poster for the combat engineer vocation.
I think the belt is the one with holes one right? Think it resembles the one worn by US Army Rangers together with their RBA kit. And US Army Special Force in their SPEAR outfit also? -
Originally posted by wuming78:
There is a poncho pouch, but there are no ammo/grenade pouch.
i get wat u mean. its jus like the normal [b]webbing except it has no poncho pouch? its for the arty and cbt engr ppl, and as u mentioned mabbe the armour as well. those travelling on veh i guess. so no need poncho. [/b]
Quite funny hur? -
Not funny lah ... they need to throw grenade meh?
-
Maybe he attn C at home nuahing?Originally posted by wuming78:hm.. pardon me for asking, but how come u can be posting here at 1 am den?
Maybe he COS or what stay in company office accessing internet lor. -
they need ammo. and prob smoke grenade. std issue.Originally posted by Icemoon:Not funny lah ... they need to throw grenade meh? -
True, although their primary role is combat support, they need weapons and ammo at hand if anything to happen, thats why I was perplexed when I see those pouches missing.Either that, or I got screwed up eyes.Originally posted by wuming78:they need ammo. and prob smoke grenade. std issue.
Any CE or Armour guys here? -
Introduce body armour to our troops, it has been long prooven to cut combat fatalities by 70 percent.... imagine the money we will save by cutting out 70 percent deaths!
-
Yeah, but primarily to cut down on attrition rate. Higher chances of winning a war.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Introduce body armour to our troops, it has been long prooven to cut combat fatalities by 70 percent.... imagine the money we will save by cutting out 70 percent deaths! -
It has a greater effect then just that, because your troops given a second, even third chance they can stick around longer and cause far more damage.Originally posted by laurence82:Yeah, but primarily to cut down on attrition rate. Higher chances of winning a war. -
True, but money is not the main priority during war, although its also a factor to consider.
-
interesting suggestion. wonder y mindef hasnt considered? or mabbe they haf jus tt we never use during peacetime trg?
cost? potential increase in heat load? not proven to work (at least in war time scenario)? actualli is the US even making all their soldiers wear body armour for Desert Storm 1 and 2? -
main worries for us are weight and combat effectiveness, dont want people to comment its 'zo teng'Originally posted by wuming78:interesting suggestion. wonder y mindef hasnt considered? or mabbe they haf jus tt we never use during peacetime trg?
cost? potential increase in heat load? not proven to work (at least in war time scenario)? actualli is the US even making all their soldiers wear body armour for Desert Storm 1 and 2?
main worries for commanders are lowering attrition rate and cost effectiveness. -
Yup, i'm on ATT C status, sprained my ankle during the last exercise...heehee...Was back in camp today, but can't do anything much with that ankle still slightly swollen.Originally posted by wuming78:hm.. pardon me for asking, but how come u can be posting here at 1 am den?
Well, actually that's also the reason why i'm in charge of the WITs suggestion thingy, cause i can't take part in anything at the moment. Making use of ~spare~ manpower lor.... -
All infantry in Iraqi Freedom 2 are issued body armour, the interceptor vest capable of stopping a 7.62.Originally posted by wuming78:interesting suggestion. wonder y mindef hasnt considered? or mabbe they haf jus tt we never use during peacetime trg?
cost? potential increase in heat load? not proven to work (at least in war time scenario)? actualli is the US even making all their soldiers wear body armour for Desert Storm 1 and 2?
Did it work? Well the facts out are as figures.
The death rate, despite heavy fighting was only SEVEN a day, the lowest rate ever for major combat in recorded history. Of all the allied soldiers killed, most of them were killed by hits to unprotected parts of their body (face, neck and legs) and almost no deaths were caused by torso hits (the most common cause of death in combat). Only in unusual cases where the bullet entered by an odd angle and bypassed the vest or a hit by a large caliber weapon was a torso injury caused.
By comparism, most of the iraqi wounded the allies treated suffered from torso injuries which effectively put them out of the fight. In many cases an allied soldier was hit by a bullet and knocked down, and back in the fight the next instant. Does body armour work and save lives? The answer is yes, and it works very well.
Go back further in history and note that many of the rangers who were wounded or killed in the battle of the black sea (black hawk down incident), were so because they opted to remove the composite plates in their ranger body armour to save weight, that would have saved them from an AK 47 round. Most telling was the case of Sgt. Casey Joyce, who was shot from the back by an AK 47, the bullet ruptured his heart and he died. He had left out his back plate and the round penetrated his vest, ironically, to embed itself in the front of this vest, where he did keep a plate. This incident was reproduced in the movie, if you saw it.
Body armour in military applications works, and saves lives. And not wearing them during peacetime does not make sense, as we need to train out troops to get used to using them.
Why neglect using body armour and sustain a 70 percent higher loss of life? So many people needlessly lost because they did not wear their protective equipment. People who could had fought on and given the enemy trouble, people who have families and loved ones. -
I dunno, but if I was a grunt, I would want body armour. Body armour certainly makes me far more combat effective, confident in battle and the added weight is more then worth the protection if I have a 70 percent higher chance of getting back home alive from that firefight. These seem pratical enough.Originally posted by laurence82:main worries for us are weight and combat effectiveness, dont want people to comment its 'zo teng'
main worries for commanders are lowering attrition rate and cost effectiveness.
After all consider this, in battle, what protects you from bullets, shells and other fast moving projectiles? You no. 4? Can you be sure that you will not take a hit? And if you do, what is the most likely area? Your torso (70 percent likelyhood). And if you have a torso injury, you can be sure it's gonna be quite bad, if not fatal. Almost every kind of critical equipment that keeps you alive in packed in that part of your body. -
Too put it in prespective, the idea of denying body armour for weight and "it's another piece of equipment" concerns is like saying that we should trade in our rifles for pistols because rifles are heavy and slow us down in battle...
-
Hmm, there is no doubt about the effectiveness of body armour, but which one have you read you can intro ti us here?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I dunno, but if I was a grunt, I would want body armour. Body armour certainly makes me far more combat effective, confident in battle and the added weight is more then worth the protection if I have a 70 percent higher chance of getting back home alive from that firefight. These seem pratical enough.
After all consider this, in battle, what protects you from bullets, shells and other fast moving projectiles? You no. 4? Can you be sure that you will not take a hit? And if you do, what is the most likely area? Your torso (70 percent likelyhood). And if you have a torso injury, you can be sure it's gonna be quite bad, if not fatal. Almost every kind of critical equipment that keeps you alive in packed in that part of your body.
-
Actually the GWs is not really a good gauge for a conventional war, IIRC most KIA in most coventional war for example WW2 were arty shells, bombs etc , not by small arms.
If the war is fully conventional war whereby both side has LR arty, strike a/c etc, chances are that most are killed by this long range weapons rather by small arms, therefore might not actually reduce much of KIA even with body armour.
Therefore will body armour be cost effective enough in these war?
Some ppl even think with these body armour, it might make them to be too "gung ho" & take unneccessary risk thereby increase mortality, what do you guys think? -
Erm, actually modern military BA is also designed to stop arty fragments, unless of course, the fragment is a really large piece, bullets are typically harder to stop then shell fragments. BA will certainly cut KIA or the severity of WIAs from battlefield hazards.Originally posted by gary1910:Actually the GWs is not really a good gauge for a conventional war, IIRC most KIA in most coventional war for example WW2 were arty shells, bombs etc , not by small arms.
If the war is fully conventional war whereby both side has LR arty, strike a/c etc, chances are that most are killed by this long range weapons rather by small arms, therefore might not actually reduce much of KIA even with body armour.
Therefore will body armour be cost effective enough in these war?
Some ppl even think with these body armour, it might make them to be too "gung ho" & take unneccessary risk thereby increase mortality, what do you guys think?
If you want to pick an older war to figure out the effectiveness of BA in a more "conventional" war. Try vietnam, when the flack jacket saved about an estimated 2000 lives, and this was the old flack jacket, before there was kevlar, and it was designed to stop shell fragments, not AK 47 bullets. Even then it work pretty well, even if it was not standard issue.
As for the gung ho issue, an idiot will be an idiot, no matter what, BA or not. But level headed soldiers like you and me of course will take it in its context. Body Armour will make us more confident and concentrate more on doing our job instead of worrying about getting hit. As the americans discovered during Iraqi Freedom, that there was a significant morale advantage provided by body armour, where troops were more calm and confident in the fight.
In fact, the current trouble the british army is facing is that they did not have enough pieces of BA to go around as they are highly coverted. In fact, they have already suffered well known KIA who was killed because he gave off his vest when ordered to higher risk troops and later was wounded fatally in an incident in which his BA would have saved his life. I think combat wise, BA has proven itself very well, so well that now the military of countries who use them are not trying to get rid of it, but is instead finding themselves critically short of it.
If this 5-6 kg thing did not work as well as it did, it would have been dumped straight away, but apparently the exact opposite happened. Allied troops are now using it for many things, from protecting themselves to lining the doors and floors of their soft skinned hummers to provide them some armour, imagine that!
Of course, BA itself will not cut KIAs if your troops are plain badly trained and do not know how to take cover. Hence it is important to train troopers how to find cover, move under cover, and learn to mvoe around the battlefield without getting exposed. Mix Body Armour in along with that skill, you get soldiers that are a lot harder to kill then your average Iraqi Conscript.
So yes, I think BA is a very good idea!