Combat load carried by infantry

last SG · 2007-12-31T12:55:42+00:00

My bad. Haha. No i'm not M203 trained, but I got confused with the alignment for the leaf sight. Regards to the quadrant sight, I havent seen those made for...

lionnoisy SG

This may little bit side track.

What weapons do a section have?
In 1998,there are 7 men in a section.

They had:2 SAW,ULTIMAX 100
5 M16 replaced by SAR 21
2 M203 replaced by SAR 21
2 LAW .

aikchongtan SG

I think I am not wrong to say that you are one of the fittest and meanest guy in your battalion. Breeze through and earn gold standard for your IPPT? chicken feet, right? Can you disclose your body weight and height? Just trying to get some objective perspective here for comparison purpose Smile

An armour is only as strong as it's weakest link. No point for you to achieve your sub-mission while the rest of your battalion straggle along your trail with their combat load, ye?

There is a catch-22 issue here. Granted, we should train the way we want to fight or we will not fight that way at all. Yet, we should preserve our body in the course of tough training. So many regular commando officers and NCO were relegated to Guards and less demanding vocation/appointment/unit after a certain age because they abuse their bodies beyond their bodies' abilities to recuperate. Having undergone so many expensive training courses, I find it illogical that they are not deployable when their trained skills are required. There is a Chinese saying: "Rear soldiers for a thousand day employ them for a single day".

kotay SG

Originally posted by aikchongtan:

I think I am not wrong to say that you are one of the fittest and meanest guy in your battalion. Breeze through and earn gold standard for your IPPT? chicken feet, right? Can you disclose your body weight and height? Just trying to get some objective perspective here for comparison purpose Smile

Hardly. I'm in the middle band of my unit fitness curve.

The units I've been in have all been very fit. Even the medics. I've heard lots of stories of f**ked up medics but other than in Tekong, I have not come across any in my units.

If it helps, I'm 62kg and 178cm ... more beanpole than buff.

An armour is only as strong as it's weakest link. No point for you to achieve your sub-mission while the rest of your battalion straggle along your trail with their combat load, ye?

Yes and No. There will always be stragglers in any unit ... someone has to come last after all Wink

However, if these under-achievers form a small minority rather than the majority, their performance (or lack of) doesn't really affect the formation's mission capability at all. That's my experience anyway. The majority will help or drag the stragglers along ...

Most SAF soldiers I've seen carry quite a load ... but I have also seen some bad apples going into the field with only 1 water bottle and flat SBOs ... those were the ones that I was alluding to with my "keng" comment.

There is a catch-22 issue here. Granted, we should train the way we want to fight or we will not fight that way at all. Yet, we should preserve our body in the course of tough training. So many regular commando officers and NCO were relegated to Guards and less demanding vocation/appointment/unit after a certain age because they abuse their bodies beyond their bodies' abilities to recuperate. Having undergone so many expensive training courses, I find it illogical that they are not deployable when their trained skills are required. There is a Chinese saying: "Rear soldiers for a thousand day employ them for a single day".

And therein lie the rub ... being in a Guards unit, we see a lot of these "excess to requirements" Cdos attached to us. Sure they may have been technically over-qualified for the unit but they do bring quite a lot of other stuff to the table.

For one, the rivalry between Gds & Cdos means that we push harder when they are around. They are always on the ball as they don't want to look bad in front of us ... that in turn drives us to do our best to try to show them up. For the most part, they also do share their technical and operational experience.

It has often been said that the best should become teachers so as to share what they know ... viewed in that light, the attachment of these Cdos can't really be all that bad.

aikchongtan SG

I think our armed forces should monitor and maintain the combat health of our servicemen more closely. Professional sportmen/women do so with intimate care to prolong their compeitive sporting life. For combat vocation that deal with life-threatening scenario, I don't see any reasons why we, as individuals and part of a combat unit, should exercise less care. I am not saying we should invest the kind of $$$ that, say, elite soccer club spend to monitor and recuperate their players. Targeted measures can be implemented to instill the right awareness in individual soldier. I know of one exemplary regular who won awards from overseas training courses with practically all ligaments/tendons torn in his body. Yeah, granted all the torn tissues were surgically mended but weakened tissues are prone to tear at most unsuspected and awkward moments. Moreover, most tissue injuries are cummulative in nature and will only surface later in life. Do you have confidence to send soldier in such state of combat health on real ops? To quote an example, British SAS was deployed in Oman/Aden in post-WWII period. A covert recon patrol was compromised and at least 2 death ensued. What happened was that a signaller trooper failed to report sick before insertion. When he eventually collapsed, the patrol had to hide in a lousy location to attend to him. The hide was discovered... A nail came off a horse shoe unnoticed; the horse collapse eventually; the general died from the horse fall; and the country fall.

I don't expect senior soldiers to charge up a ridge with me. If they can charge with me, it's a bonus. I expect direction and leadership from them at critical moments, wise command gleaned from years of soldiering experience. So, I am fully supportive of "excess to requirement" elite soldiers being redeployed to less demanding vocation. Their valuable experience should be shared, not lost forever when they leave the service or pass on.

aikchongtan SG

Just in case you are wondering why I am harping on the weight of combat load carried by riflemen in general. I am getting on in age. My joints are creaking now. Sad I never say die when I was young and hearty; I thought I was invulnerable to physical challenges.

Met and chat with a guy in his 50's at the hawker centre a month back. He looked in reasonable shape to me at his age. He claimed he was very sporty in his prime days, participating in marathon, climbing, do high repeitition push-up, seat-up, chin-up and etc. Now, he is aching and regretting all the abuses he subjected himself to in the past. Some homosapiens are less susceptible to injuries than other but, I think, based on my observations, they are in the minority.

In fact, homosapiens do not have bio-mechanically sound structure to carry external load. So, why should we carry unnecessary and unreasonable load in the first place unless we are forced by circumstances. A documentary that I watched claims that homosapien should have evolved biologically to move on all four limbs, not on the legs. (Can't remember why we evolved to walk on 2 legs now) That explained why arthritis are so prevalant in the knee and ankle joints.

R3SsH|n SG

Originally posted by lionnoisy:
This may little bit side track.

[b]What weapons do a section have?
In 1998,there are 7 men in a section.

They had:2 SAW,ULTIMAX 100
5 M16 replaced by SAR 21
2 M203 replaced by SAR 21
2 LAW .

[/b]

still the same 7 per section..

now 2 SAW, 2 LAW, 2 M203, 1 Sect Com. that means 3 SAR 21 for SC and 2 LAW gunners...

SpecOps87 SG

Well, its is there a section sharpshooter/marksmen per section?

beavan SG

there used to be, but not anymore with the introduction of the the SAR21.

Everybody is now considered a sharpshooter.

aikchongtan SG

So all guns in the section are equiped with magnification scope now? ie., the SAW and M203 besides the SAR21.

tankee1981 SG

The last time i seen, they do not have any scopes for the SAW and M203 weapons.

Further more, since the Ultimax is a LMG a scope may not be necessary. The M203 gunner is still using the old M203 plus M16S1 combo so there is no need to have a scope there too. Unless they decide to change the M203 to the SAR-21 M203 or SAR-21 40GL versions then will have the intergrated scope of the SAR-21.

SAR-21 M203 and SAR-21 40GL pics and specs
http://www.stengg.com/upload/617nXWOgF1ZH01nUEac.pdf

Here is an article with a pic of the latest Ultimax Mk4 version designed for USMC which have no scope
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=853

LazerLordz SG

Section Marksman supposed to get the 3x Scope for the SAR21 whereas the rest of the men get the usual 1.5x.

However, I would still prefer the SAR21 to be issued with M1913 rails.

chino65 SG

Anyone has any idea why SAF is unable/unwilling to issue a SAR-21 with grenade launcher?

Shotgun SG

I think its a balancing issue when the launcher is loaded. Makes it difficult to shoot the 40mm I think.

Another possible consideration is the configuration of the Leaf Sight would be different given the SAR-21's lack of a rear-sight apperture. Current ones are developed for the M-16, not the SAR-21, and its likely that a special leaf sight has to be made for the SAR.

If they go the FN-2000 and OICW route, it would be adding computerised targeting systems for the 40mm. That would have weight penalties.

Oh, come to think of it, I havent seen the quadrant sight for the M-203 yet. Dunno if its economically feasible or not.

kotay SG

BS ... SAR-21 with 3x scopes are issued 1 per section.

(at least in ITC - Tg Gul ... YMMV).

kotay SG

*cough* wannabe *cough* Wink

kotay SG

On visual alone, the bullpup-GL configuration looks way more balanced than a conventional GL combo. The M16-203 combo is very front heavy, puts all the weight on the front hand making it difficult to hold a sight picture in a free unsupported firing position.

My guess ... ?
i) Budget
ii) Commonality. With the grenadier going to SAR-21, the poor Ultimax will be an orphan with no one to scavenge mags from. Until they come out with a polymer mag SAW, they may not go down this path yet.
iii) Evolution. The SAR-21 may be due for a Mk2 version soon. They may want to see how this pans out before going through the expense of redesigning the GL mounts and re-issue. Which leads to ...
iv) Budget.

My 2c anyway.

kotay SG

Originally posted by Shotgun:
[b]Another possible consideration is the configuration of the Leaf Sight would be different given the SAR-21's lack of a rear-sight apperture.

Errmmmm ... Huh?

Don't want to come across harsh but Dude! Have you fired an M203 with a leaf sight before? Or did you get confused?

You line up the leaf sight with the front sight lah.

Smile

edwin3060 SG

Bull-pups are generally more balanced with a GL as compared with conventional rifles, because most of the weight of the rifle is at the back, which is then offset by the GL at the front. I would guess that both cost and commonality with the SAW are holding back the introduction of the SAR-21/40 GL.

However you could then ask why not have the SAR-21 LMG? I would guess that the SAR-21 LMG is not as good as the Ultimax.

Interestingly LMG design in the US is moving towards magazine fed, specifically having common magazines between the AR and the LMG in a section. See the Magpul Masada for one. Laughing

kotay SG

I think a better example to use will be the USMC IAR program.

http://www.fedbizopps.gov//spg/DON/USMC/M67854/ARRFI/SynopsisR.html

Hellraiza SG

erm.....so where is this all heading?

sorry lah. i don't know much regarding sights, apertures, weight balance and stuff....i only know how to squeeze the trigger. Embarassed

« Previous Page Next Page »