Replacement for our LAW?
-
As tempting as it may be......My advise is try not to give any technical detail on the weapon.....for National sercurity's sake....
-
Hmmm heard of the MBT LAW?
Supposed to be some guided LAW, that has special top attack capabilities, as well as the usual straight trajectory option for bunker busting.
Heard theres some air bursting option too... -
Those carrying LAW tube cannot tahan oready still want heavier. If the 84 gun until now still dun want to change to MKII or something else you guys can forget it.
The LAW we trained traditionally not meant for killing MBT, more for bunkers or soft skin vehicles upto light amoured vehicles or for softening up small clusters of enemy forces.
And if they do replace it, you can bet it will definately be heavier since it is going to pack more punch but they will require a reason why they need to replace it since we are operational with LAW for many years & logistically I think it is manufactured under license.
If they do change it I would advocate going for a thermobaric option since some of our closer neighbours already have it in their inventory and have no qualms to using a chemical based weapon. -
It is Swedish. I thought we don't buy Swedish systems any more? Problems with end use.Originally posted by SPIKER: -
Overheard this while at work....Originally posted by erijazz:its start wif the letter M
Your starting letter for the name sort of 'confirms' what I heard...
It is a word to describe the person who tags the bull in spanish bull-fights....
But haven't seen the real thing....seen what supposed to be the mock-up of it....heard dat it's of 83/84 cal....probably like an AT-4/AT-8....but dunno really ....if it's even guided.... -
Things to consider:Originally posted by panzerjager:Overheard this while at work....
Your starting letter for the name sort of 'confirms' what I heard...
It is a word to describe the person who tags the bull in spanish bull-fights....
But haven't seen the real thing....seen what supposed to be the mock-up of it....heard dat it's of 83/84 cal....probably like an AT-4/AT-8....but dunno really ....if it's even guided....
Back blast area req compared to LAW.
Number of operators req compared to LAW.
Concept : for tank killing or section close in fighting.
Lastly 1 combat section ony 7 guys before it used to be 10 but manpower shortages down to 7, reserve units even less. So if the platform is 2 man gun dats additional 3 guys per platoon, 12 guys per coy, exc support coy, 36 guys req per battalion the number goes up.
Where they going to dig up 36 guys, mebbe they get bangala "foreign talent" as ammo bearers. -
Manpower... that is the serious issue now for the SAF.
Last time I know got 8 men and then 9 men section and finally down to 7-men section.
I don't remember there is 10 men section. got meh? -
is tt due to a shortage of manpower? i doubt so... doesnt the US and israel practice the same doctrine?Originally posted by spencer99:Manpower... that is the serious issue now for the SAF.
Last time I know got 8 men and then 9 men section and finally down to 7-men section.
I don't remember there is 10 men section. got meh? -
yes..he is right..its due to shortage of manpower..Originally posted by wuming78:is tt due to a shortage of manpower? i doubt so... doesnt the US and israel practice the same doctrine?
think 7 men is the max liao..cannot less anymore -
so u mean to say the 7-men section is unique to singapore?Originally posted by NathanG5:yes..he is right..its due to shortage of manpower..
think 7 men is the max liao..cannot less anymore -
no its not..we follow the Israelis way..that time..Originally posted by wuming78:so u mean to say the 7-men section is unique to singapore?
it was 7 men from the start...then due to doctrine..it was increase to 10 or more..
but now because our population is getting older..so less BMT intake..SAF drop it back to 7 section.. -
Double Post
-
This is what I know..... I enlist in 1990. So you know how old I am
I am always a military nut so I keep track of these things.
Anyway before I enlist, there was an article in the papers on how SAF "increased" the firepower of an infantry section. The 9-men section but with much much more fire-power. two M203, two SAW, two LAW and 7 M16S1.
9-men section
Group 1
Sect Comd M16S1
No.1 Grenadier M16S1/M203
No.1 LAW M16S1 and LAW
Group 2
No.2 Group IC M16S1
No.2 LAW and Sharpshooter M16S1/SSScope and LAW
No.1 SAW U100
Group 3
Section 2IC/Group 3 IC M16S1
No.2 Grenadier M16S1/M203
No.2 SAW U100
And then they decrease to 7-men sometime before I enlist in late '89 or early '90. Out in the papers too, to the current 7 men section. When I was in BMT they didn't update the slides yet and still got 9-men but with 2 men cross out.
Group 1
Sect Comd M16S1
No.1 Grenadier M16S1/M203
No.1 LAW M16S1 and LAW
Group 2
Goup 2 IC and No.2 LAW and Sharpshooter M16S1/SSScope and LAW
No.1 SAW U100
Group 3
Section 2IC/Group 3 IC No.2 Grenadier M16S1/M203
No.2 SAW U100 -
interesting! so i see the main diff being the removal of the Grp 2 and 3 ICs - 2 less M16s. i guess they took it that these roles can be double-hatted by the M203 and LAW.Originally posted by spencer99:This is what I know..... I enlist in 1990. So you know how old I am
I am always a military nut so I keep track of these things.
Anyway before I enlist, there was an article in the papers on how SAF "increased" the firepower of an infantry section. The 9-men section but with much much more fire-power. two M203, two SAW, two LAW and 7 M16S1.
9-men section
Group 1
Sect Comd M16S1
No.1 Grenadier M16S1/M203
No.1 LAW M16S1 and LAW
Group 2
No.2 Group IC M16S1
No.2 LAW and Sharpshooter M16S1/SSScope and LAW
No.1 SAW U100
Group 3
Section 2IC/Group 3 IC M16S1
No.2 Grenadier M16S1/M203
No.2 SAW U100
And then they decrease to 7-men sometime before I enlist in late '89 or early '90. Out in the papers too, to the current 7 men section. When I was in BMT they didn't update the slides yet and still got 9-men but with 2 men cross out.
Group 1
Sect Comd M16S1
No.1 Grenadier M16S1/M203
No.1 LAW M16S1 and LAW
Group 2
Goup 2 IC and No.2 LAW and Sharpshooter M16S1/SSScope and LAW
No.1 SAW U100
Group 3
Section 2IC/Group 3 IC No.2 Grenadier M16S1/M203
No.2 SAW U100 -
In the past the GPMGs in a company are grouped together and attached to the platoons as necessary. But now they are organic to the Platoon and under the PC and Platoon SGT. So they save some manpower also. I think last time GPMG not three men team but 4 man team, got a no3 gunner as well.
And in the past there are 4 rifle company in one Infantry Battlion. The SIR now is really very small compared to a the SIR in the past in terms of manpower. -
my time also 4 rifle coy then later changed to 3 rifle 1 supp.Originally posted by spencer99:And in the past there are 4 rifle company in one Infantry Battlion. The SIR now is really very small compared to a the SIR in the past in terms of manpower. -
Actually in the past , the 9 men section do not have SAW but used the M-16S1 Heavy Barrel for section support fire.
No LAW too, I dun remember whether there were Grenadier too in the 9 men section in the late 70s.
IIRC , they were mainly M-16 riflemen with the HB for section support weapon.
-
Only the US marines has a 10 men section.Originally posted by spencer99:Manpower... that is the serious issue now for the SAF.
Last time I know got 8 men and then 9 men section and finally down to 7-men section.
I don't remember there is 10 men section. got meh? -
But the LAW is a crampy weapon though, one of SAF's purchaser for the LAW got somewhat conned that it is really good. Indented a whole stock of it...
I mean which ATW, anit tank weapon, can only be used once? Duh, you're bound to miss at least once!
Finally, they decided to phrase it out... when it came to my turn, I intended 30 laws to a Company! All of the men super high morale after the L/F.
And they still have more stock?
Each law is $50k I think
Each ATGM missle is about $1m <- I intended a couple of these babies for L/F haha... sweet!
You would'nt want to know how much my unit spent on ammo each year! Wander if its because I just indented alot alot! hehe -
In 1988 or 89 thereabouts, there was an article in the papers about Singapore 9-men section. And LAW,SAW and M203 are protrayed. They trying to say that now Section got a lot of firepower. These weapons may not seem like a big deal now, but during the late 80s, these are a lot of firepower! NVGs are almost unheard of. No Spike, AGL or LSV.Originally posted by gary1910:Actually in the past , the 9 men section do not have SAW but used the M-16S1 Heavy Barrel for section support fire.
No LAW too, I dun remember whether there were Grenadier too in the 9 men section in the late 70s.
IIRC , they were mainly M-16 riflemen with the HB for section support weapon. -
LAW more for conventional close quater fighting against fairly robust pockets of enemy forces slightly larger than 1 section, busting bunkers making holes in walls etc ...Originally posted by :But the LAW is a crampy weapon though, one of SAF's purchaser for the LAW got somewhat conned that it is really good. Indented a whole stock of it...
I mean which ATW, anit tank weapon, can only be used once? Duh, you're bound to miss at least once!
Finally, they decided to phrase it out... when it came to my turn, I intended 30 laws to a Company! All of the men super high morale after the L/F.
And they still have more stock?
Each law is $50k I think
Each ATGM missle is about $1m <- I intended a couple of these babies for L/F haha... sweet!
You would'nt want to know how much my unit spent on ammo each year! Wander if its because I just indented alot alot! hehe
LAW nvr meant for killing tanks, yah if you happen to see a scorpion or weasel dat's a bonus but LAW nvr meant for that.
ATGM is diff dats dedicated for tank killing only and nothing else, unlike 84mm which can also be used as short range support base operations role in tandem with infantry assaults. -
Just want to query, are you infantry trained? Cause last time I checked the targets were tanks? Not BUNKERS or walls(why do you want a hole in a wall for? FIBUA, we use C4 door charge).Originally posted by paulho:LAW more for conventional close quater fighting against fairly robust pockets of enemy forces slightly larger than 1 section, busting bunkers making holes in walls etc ...
LAW nvr meant for killing tanks, yah if you happen to see a scorpion or weasel dat's a bonus but LAW nvr meant for that.
ATGM is diff dats dedicated for tank killing only and nothing else, unlike 84mm which can also be used as short range support base operations role in tandem with infantry assaults.
Btw, what a LAW(thus, the name Light Antitank Weapon) does is not blow up the tank like the ATGM(Heavey Antitank Weapon). Its meant to drill into the tank, and once inside, its creates a thermo heat reaction which causes the tank to heat up and melt the crew inside.
For the latest US tank used in Iraq, their armour has a reflective shield which most conventional ATWs would bounce off. Our LAW would be ineffective against it. The weakest spot is still between the turret. But thats the hardest spot to aim and also the most dangerous. The best use of the LAW in this case would be to aim for the tank's tracks. Once the tracks are destroyed, it will be a sitting duck. However, looking at the formidable US tank division, I will be over run by say a 100-odd tanks. Haha...
->The Main Battle Tank and Light Armour Weapon, MBT LAW, developed by Saab Bofors Dynamics, was selected in May 2002 for the UK Army Next generation Light Anti-tank Weapon (NLAW). The portable, short range, fire-and-forget system will enter service in 2006 to replace the British Army's existing Insys LAW-80 system that is reaching the end of its operational life.
We might follow the British... and get the MBT. But the Javalin looks sweet!
-
Why wouldn't you want a hole in a wall, especially if concrete covers an enemy that is well-defended and difficult to approach. You won't be able to get into the building and use the door all the time. Last time i checked, plastic explosives don't walk up to a target by itself.Originally posted by :Just want to query, are you infantry trained? Cause last time I checked the targets were tanks? Not BUNKERS or walls(why do you want a hole in a wall for? FIBUA, we use C4 door charge). -
Going according to the FIBUA exercise that SAF conducts, since we know some day hopefully not, we will fight in the hdb blocks of Singapore or in KLCC. Hence, using a LAW was not taught as we wanted to capture the building and secure hostages if any or reuse it as an objective to defend.Originally posted by Blockhead:Why wouldn't you want a hole in a wall, especially if concrete covers an enemy that is well-defended and difficult to approach. You won't be able to get into the building and use the door all the time. Last time i checked, plastic explosives don't walk up to a target by itself. The same goes for a fortified hill top with concentina wires all around, someone has the ditry job of shoving the bangalore torpedo inside the wire!!!! I would use the law the blow up the wire than risk one of men doing that, but thats the training doctrine for you!
If we wanted the building to be blown to bits, I would just call for an FO or air strike!!!
LAW is a precious item 1 shot only, only 2 LAW to a section. What if you encountered a tank.
Sure but your point is taken as well, firing a LAW into a RPG mounted on the window would be good. My point was, not to use the LAW just to make a hole into a wall. -
The Armbrust I believe have amour penetration of up to 300mm which is quite limited against most MBT even by the 80s when it was first introduced into SAF.
Most modern MBT(designed since late 70s and 80s) have armour protection of more than 300mm in the turret and glacis.
But with introduction bolted ERA and other applique armour, it even less likely to penetrate even a older tank. It will be lucky to hit a mobility kill targeting the side and the rear of the tank.
Therefore, the Armbrust was not designed to handle MBT but rather against APC, bunker and other light vehicles which they are more effective. It is also cheap (USD1.5k) and simple to use, but the probability of hits is quite low too especially against a moving target.