Inadequate SAF Small Arms Sights

last SG · 2011-02-14T10:58:23+00:00

Ditzy, it is catastrophic if not very very stupid if you cant hit your target at 50 m when you happen to be doing guard duty one dark night at your army cam...

Sepecat SG

Hi Weasel,

Unfortunately the SAR21 is technically not much of an

advance over the M16. In some instances it was a step

backward. Let’s hope for a much improved SAR21A.

I believe that full ACMS suite will be issued to

Section Commander and 2 I/C only & its asking

a lot from these guys to take on additional role of FO for

brigade and division assets – not practical.

More effective & efficient to have specially trained FO team with

the requisite higher performance targeting & comms equipment ,

not to mention training to do this particular job.

Sepecat SG

Hi Weasel

o I'm not convinced that the latest sights improve effectiveness as much as claimed compared to existing, and far less below 300m where targets are already within normal visual range.

Be convinced otherwise there will not be at least half a million of them in use now in current conflicts.

As mentioned in my first post on this thread, I think good gun sights serve as recon tools as well. This is generally not needed below 300m and a good pair of binos can easily replicate this capability beyond 300m.

Indeed you will need not only binos to look at details BELOW 300 m but more so thermal imaging equipment for battlefield and night scenarios.

Snipers use spotting scopes of up to 40X and they are looking out for targets up to 800 m.

Mark1 eyeball cannot spot details at 300 m unless endowed with eagle eyesight. So you need binos to spot details. But a 4 to 6X scope will help & you will not need to carry add binos.

The suggestion for better sights is certainly far better than your earlier raam suggestion. But in the context of the SAF, they do not replace everything just like that. Even AR-15s are still in service and its replacement is still performed incrementally.

In fact they do eg A4s replaced with F15SGs.

I think if the SAF were to think the previous optical sights were sufficient, they would not have shifted production to the full length picatinny rail SAR-21A. The rail would allow for integration of other sights. In this regard, my guess is that the SAF would leverage on better sights eventually. It make sense to use the latest sights for later production models as they become available, subject to suitability. However, I doubt if this will extend into a retrofit

My point exactly. Clearly SAF realizes that SAR21 sight is less than sufficient & that’s why SAR21A will come with P rails & I suspect sights akin to the ACOGs, Aimpoints, Elcans.

I agree that there is no point in retrofitting the SAR21 – better to have all the benefits in a totally revamped SAR21A ( & hopefully very much improved ) & totally replace SAR21 and M16.

storywolf SG

SAR-21 was build with with objective - cheap, good and effective !!! It is basically a rojak rifle - trying to copy from different rifles. Of course rojak end up over doing it - which lead to extra weight.

Even at that time - most modern western armies also cannot affort fancy sights like ACOGs or aimpoints.

As for the sight - I would not say it is the best or the worst. Face it it is simple, effective get the job done. I think what we got is average sight - which a lot other armies still does not have.

I think SAR-21A will see a improvement from SAR-21.

Underpaid SG

Give it up story, no point arguing with a madman. Notice that he keeps trying to make it personal by insults and slander because he don't have much else backing him up. Notice how NOBODY backed him up on the buying of the sights. I'm betting he's never been in NS, mythical "classified" unit or otherwise.

I am amused by his insistance that in war, there is never going to be an air or arty strike, only in computer games Especially since one of my unit's functions is Forward Observer. Which also explains why it's easier for me to get arty than ammo resupply.

Can someone enlighten Mr NS wannabe how long it takes for a smoke hand grenade to generate a decent screen? He obviously doesn't know.

Stop whining ! Can t you see that the SAF does not trust wimps who cant handle a smoke grenade let alone a full 100 round mag, NVGs ?

Must be talking about himself, smoke and NVGs are my standard loadout...

SAF must have great confidence in me. Where's YOUR NVG? :P

storywolf SG

unless i have really good scope ! - if not i cannot win - speak more of the the lack of confident in his own shooting and skill. Give him the best scope - he will still lose !!!

The world is forever coming out with better scopes and more expensive scope. You cannot be forever chasing it . Usually sensible people will go for average - to balance cost, easy of use, and availability and get right to shooting.

Sepecat SG

Underpaid, like I said many times, your powers of comprehension are beyond rescue. To the contrary, no one has refuted the fact that these sights are very much better than the SAR21's. And clearly neither have you. But it is no surprise coming from a monomaniac like you - I just love to use new words - don't you ?

Please read my posts again. I already said that, if the rules of engagement permit and it is the best solution, by all means call for an arty or air strike. I wud too.

Sorry, it was you who volunteered your personal experience with the smoke grenade. Did you notice that no one backed you up your claim !

Sorry again, but it was you who said that no NVGs were available.

Sepecat SG

Storywolf,

In fact many of the best rifles are a result of taking the best of previous rifles and throwing out the worst. No need to reinvent the wheel. This process is called development.

At the time when SAR21 appeared, the BA already had SUSAT sights on their standard rifles for many years.

The SAR21 sight cud have been much better by some simple fixes such as an illuminated reticle. Note how simple and effective were SUSAT and even the sight on the AUG rifles of long ago.

Sepecat SG

Storywolf, I am so saddened that you too are in the same league as Underpaid. And I hope that you are also not one of the handful of monomaniacs lurking in Singapore.

If you bother to read my posts, you wud have noted that I shoot very well with iron sights ; and so do many other SAF riflemen.

And if you wud have bothered reading further, the point is that these sights make good shooters not only better but very much faster. And if the magnified variety are attached to weapons such as SAWs, GPMGs, 50 cal etc, then well you can kiss the enemy goodbye.

Of course there will always be better equipment. So shud we have stuck to AS350s with TOWs instead of AH64Ds with Hellfire, A4s instead of F15SGs , laser guided bombs instead of dumb bombs etc etc ? Well the list in the SAF arsenal goes on and on.

If you personally wish to go to a fight with an average weapon in a real war, be my guest. As for me I & many others , we will definitely take along the best weapon available. If you disagree then you are probably a monomaniac or worse.

Underpaid SG

"Storywolf, I am so saddened that you too are in the same league as Underpaid. And I hope that you are also not one of the handful of monomaniacs lurking in Singapore."

See what I mean? Insults and slander instead of factual discussion. How he's going to pass GP, I've no idea.

"Sorry again, but it was you who said that no NVGs were available."

He really failed comprehension didn't he?

"If you disagree then you are probably a monomaniac or worse."

Only an idiot would use words he doesn't know. Oh wait....

"Please read my posts again. I already said that, if the rules of engagement permit and it is the best solution, by all means call for an arty or air strike. I wud too. "

Your only theory is taking out the enemy by an arty or air strike just like a video game - typical juvenile thinking.

Liar too. Total fail post, total fail poster.

Shotgun SG

Wah... didn't realise the topic was this hot. Sepecat, seriously, ease up with the personal comments.

Now, the reason why some of us think that you have not gone through NS or BMT as a combatant is because you lack knowledge on the typical engagement distance of an infantryman in our neck of the woods (and heck, anywhere else too). If you did, you would not have suggested shooting at infantry targets at 600m with 5.56mm assault rifles.

And of course there was that last sentence about you taking the "best weapon available." You know you won't have a choice. If the army gives you a SAR-21, you will shoot nothing but a SAR-21 unless you somehow admit to being involved illegal arms trading in Singapore.

Now, no one here is against the use of ACOG or wadever scopes/sights you suggest. The question is whether they are economically feasible as a standard issue for a conscript army thats not actively deployed. If the budget allows, who knows? But, there are other priorities that serve as better force multipliers than infantry optics. Integrated Fire support and close air support for example.

They are more effective force multipliers for many reasons, the simplest being raw firepower. They are have greater deterrence value compared to infantry sights. Aggressors think twice when they look SG's army. It is small and composed largely of conscripts, but yet have access to some of the most advanced fighting systems in the world such as a HIMARS, Apaches, JDAMs and what nots. Infantry optics is a small part that is not difficult to rectify, like u said, they are easy to use. Just damn expensive to sign 1206 for.

Oh, btw, don't need to ask me what unit. Honestly I also don't know and prefer if they don't tell me.

Underpaid SG

"Oh, btw, don't need to ask me what unit. Honestly I also don't know and prefer if they don't tell me. "

Congratulations on the end of the long road.

weasel1962 SG

Hi Weasel,

Unfortunately the SAR21 is technically not much of an

advance over the M16. In some instances it was a step

backward. Let’s hope for a much improved SAR21A.

I believe that full ACMS suite will be issued to

Section Commander and 2 I/C only & its asking

a lot from these guys to take on additional role of FO for

brigade and division assets – not practical.

More effective & efficient to have specially trained FO team with

the requisite higher performance targeting & comms equipment ,

not to mention training to do this particular job.

I apparently missed this. Tot I should address this with this quote from the link below.

http://soldiermod.com/summer-08/prog-acms.html

"Describing the system[acms]’s call for fire capability Lt. Col. Kong said, “We think it is very important to say ‘I see you shoot’,” allowing the section to call upon systems that aren’t held at the section level to engage specific targets they do not have the capability to engage effectively."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It is very clear where SAF is headed. The individual section firepower is limited, sights or otherwise. The thinking behind network capability is value-add. Seen in this context, the argument for better sights is moot. Its not urgent.

Having an ACMS system allows the section to tackle aggressor troops that out-size it as well as "out-sight" it. The enemy aggressor at below company-level can at most shoot you at 600m (or 2 click with a sniper barrett under exceptional circumstances). So long as the SAF section can spot an aggressor, they can rely on 70km sniper rifles aka GMLRS/HIMARS or more. I can't see how this would be a losing battle even if I was still carrying my trusty ol' M-16 plus a 24x25 bino (eg cheap nikon travelite).

On the other side, people will have to get to company-level to obtain FO access. Sensor-shooter cycle far shorter with the ACMS = shoot first. Those are by-words for the current 3G army.

alize SG

Paradoxical that some people are saying the SAF is a conscript army unable to fully use the potential of high-end sights, yet they expect soldiers call in fires with the ACMS.

There isn't a forced choice between the two. Firstly, SAF can afford both. Secondly the ACMS defeats its purpose as a system if it doesn't include a decent sight for infantrymen to help themselves.

The key thrust of ACMS is target designation for fellow soldiers right? Yet I must designate a target for my buddy beside me with a visible red laser? Strange priorities indeed.

SAF-in-my-backpack my ass. I'd like to be able to help myself and my section mates in a pinch.

Well and good if the SAR21A solves the sight problem (and all the other SAR21 problems). But ACMS as currently publicised, I'll go so far as to call it a classic case of wayang with cool gadgets for an uninitiated public. Act Cool and help me Make Superscale.

weasel1962 SG

Paradoxical that some people are saying the SAF is a conscript army unable to fully use the potential of high-end sights, yet they expect soldiers call in fires with the ACMS.

There isn't a forced choice between the two. Firstly, SAF can afford both. Secondly the ACMS defeats its purpose as a system if it doesn't include a decent sight for infantrymen to help themselves.

The key thrust of ACMS is target designation for fellow soldiers right? Yet I must designate a target for my buddy beside me with a visible red laser? Strange priorities indeed.

SAF-in-my-backpack my ass. I'd like to be able to help myself and my section mates in a pinch.

Clearly the SAF needs to use simpler words to explain how ACMS works. I tot its already simple enough but I'll make an attempt.

Built-in GPS = auto-knowledge of friendly force location.

Communications pad = push 1 button to send message "need help".

Camera = point and relay image.

Seems goondu proof to me. No need to explain what is the problem, just show. No need to say where one is, computer already show. No need explain whether under-fire, just push button. Don't even need to read map. Digital map show where you are and where you need to go. I don't know about wayang but all those items seem pretty relevant to me.

I remember a time when we didn't even have 732s in a section so how to communicate? Then we had a counter where we had to click to count footsteps so one doesn't get lost. And then map-reading in tall lallang. lol. Clearly someone either isn't in infantry and has never gone thru BMT.

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/content/dam/imindef_media_library/photos/news_release/2008/sep/0018.res?direct=1

ACMS has absolutely nothing to do with rifle sight. I think 99.999% of SAF still point their weapons in the right direction. If one is blind, the camera will still capture the images.

One may have the best rifle sight in the world but if you're not where you're supposed to be, all the best rifle sights in the world are useless. If you don't know where you are, can't call for help, can't identify the enemy, then all the best rifle sights in the world = useless. I can certainly understand why there is the ACMS.

For those who would like to know more, I would suggest reading Martin Van Creveld's book "command in war". That would really set the context for the ACMS system. For those who don't know who that person is, google. I would also recommend his "bible" on logistics. Its a must read for any war enthusiast who wants a good understanding of warfare.

Underpaid SG

Actually alise, as someone who has done both shooting and fire-support before, it's actually much easier to call in arty than to shoot properly. Yes, it's that ironic. If you can read a map, you can get in decent off-grid fire support or even a directed airstrike, you just have to tell others how to do it. :lol: Shooting on the other hand, it's DIY, no help for you there, you're on your own buddy!

The biggest gripe here is not the skill of using the sights but

1) the gain from a "top end sight" is miniscule compared to current sights. It doesn't matter if your 5.56 is directed by Elocan or by SAR-21 sights, if it hits, it still counts. An example would be people saying the open bolt Ultimax is less accurate than an M-16 due the different systems, but any user can tell you, the drop in accuracy is so minimal it's almost not a factor. Or people saying 40mm grenade's time of flight is too long, but in practice, that is almost never a problem. So in theory, better sights = more accuracy, but practically, the gain is so slight, it's negligible. and

2) Maintainence. How many bo-chap soldiers we have in the SAF? These people are going to be slack on maintainence, they really gain nothing out of being hardworking in the SAF, unless you want to follow SEPACAT's "execute all slackers as traitors to the People!" philosophy.

BTW weasel,

"Clearly someone either isn't in infantry and has never gone thru BMT."

This may have been a bit too far. Let us see 1st before saying things like this lest we become like a certain cad.. oh sorry, cat.

Shotgun SG

I don't think anyone said that SAF conscripts are "Unable" to use red dot sights.

alize SG

Clearly the SAF needs to use simpler words to explain how ACMS works. I tot its already simple enough but I'll make an attempt.

Built-in GPS = auto-knowledge of friendly force location.

Communications pad = push 1 button to send message "need help".

Camera = point and relay image.

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/content/dam/imindef_media_library/photos/news_release/2008/sep/0018.res?direct=1

ACMS has absolutely nothing to do with rifle sight. I think 99.999% of SAF still point their weapons in the right direction. If one is blind, the camera will still capture the images.

You are taking this way too far. If this ACMS system removes the need to shoot accurately/at night, maybe you want to issue PDWs or pistols instead. It's not like your fire support assets are always available.

Anyway you didn't address how reflex sights and/or night sights are not useful if we have ACMS.

Underpaid SG

"I don't think anyone said that SAF conscripts are "Unable" to use red dot sights."

But...but.. I'm colourblind!! :lol:

Think both of you are a bit on different topics, weasel's on the usefulness of ACMS while you were on usefulness of better sights, hence a bit of crossed wires.

I for one would NEVER avocate replacing small arms with a ACMS set, not would I replace my NVBs for one. These items are supposed to be used in combination, not solo. We're an army, not the Lone Ranger. This applies to our equipment too. TI-NVB-Laser pointer. Spotter-Localiser-Aimer. All have their jobs.

ACMS? When you have more targets than ammo or common sense. :P

weasel1962 SG

Anyway you didn't address how reflex sights and/or night sights are not useful if we have ACMS.

Didn't say reflex sights and/or night sights are not useful. No one is advocating no small arms. The question which has been repeated is what is the incremental benefit over existing sights.

I do think night/reflex sights are recon tools. SAR-21 already has optical sights. The SAR-21A can be equipped with better sights. No doubt.

But that has zero bearing on the effectiveness of the ACMS. ACMS is a big value add. No fire support, keep out of range of an enemy who can shoot you at longer range and I'm not talking about just rifle sights. Common sense.

An M-16 with an ACMS and good fire support is far more valuable than a sharpshooters rifle with no situation awareness. Of course a sharpshooter with an ACMS and good fire support is better than an M-16 with an ACMS and good fire support. But is it worth converting the entire SAF to sharpshooter + night scopes? Maybe not.

alize SG

Why not worth?

Soldiers cannot choose not to fight at night or in scenarios requiring quick aiming. If it keeps soldiers out of hospital or the morgue, it's logistically and morally worthwhile. It's not a cool "recon tool", every soldier can benefit from one.

I see it not as a question of worth, but as an obligation.

As to ACMS, it's built around the basic SAR-21 for 5 out of 7 soldiers. I asked an officer involved during my NS when I was fortuitiously posted there for a few days. Seeing how infantry battalions were converted to SAR-21 as recently as 2006, it's easy to see it remaining for a long time to come.

« Previous Page Next Page »