Yup, tracers point both ways. (somehow this line sounds familiar....)

Which north do you mean? PRC or Thailand(?!)

I seriously don't think "the powers that be"(you know who they are) wants an unstable Straits of Malacca and probably would use any means to prevent any instability.

Instabilty in this region would bring a lot of trouble and grief to some certain 'parties'......

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Apr 23 2011, 02:37 PM

Trouble in ASEAN,and Singapore Government will be staying neutral? I think everyone knows the answer to that question.......
Probably doing the damdest to avert any conflicts in the region,
Don't want any of those "marginal error in Missile GPS System",do we.....

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Apr 23 2011, 02:44 PM

Wonder which one should be done first?

1.Destroy the enemy's field army
2.Occupy territory
3.Capture major cities

Don't think doing all three simultaneously would be possible.....

Practice makes perfect,man...
I think another factor is the AK style magazine release. Because unlike STANAG type magazines (M16/M4 series, SA80) in which an empty magazine has to be physically pulled out of the magazine well after releasing the locking catch ,the AK style Magazine is simply held in place by the forward lip of the magazine and the catch of the magazine release. So AK style magazines will immediately fall after the magazine catch is unlocked.

Also,by replacing the AK series weapons with the QBZ-95 and the professionalization of the PLA instead of maintaining a conscript army really shows the PRC as being really serious in modernizing of its armed forces. Coupled with the drastic modernization and expansion of the PLA-Air and the PLA-Navy will really make the PRC a major player in the Asian and ASEAN Region,whether we like it or not......


A PLA Marine manning a Heavy machine gun displays the new pattern Type-07 Maritime Combat uniform.On the background another Marine is armed with a QBZ-95 with attached Grenade Launcher.

Hmm....not sure about that,I'm talking from experience (Airsoft but still the principle is the same,right?) I have both the M4 and AK74 with metal receivers and magazines. Because the Magazine needs to be steady to prevent misfeeds,the AR type magazines is fitted quite snug inside the magazine well while being held by the locking catch. This is worse if the magazine is made of Plastic,in which the scratches and roughening on the magazine will amplify the effect.simply said, an empty AR type magazine will simply WOULD NOT drop when you press the magazine catch(regardless of what the movies show you...)

On the other hand,the AK type magazine systems are much simpler to operate,when you press the magazine catch,just a simple flick of the wrist will remove the magazine.All of this requires only one hand while the AR type needs the trigger finger of the firing hand to push the release catch button and the other hand to pull out the magazine from the magazine well.

wow,I hope everyone could understand that....anyway,that's my experience with AR and AK type magazines....

Hmmm....a SU-30 MKM derivative? wouldn't it be somewhat on the large side for carrierborne operations?

I guess it's ok to have large naval fighters (Phantom,Tomcat) if you're operating out of a Nimitz Supercarrier,but as far as I know,the PLA-Navy only has 1 small carrier with the ski jump ramps designed for the smaller Su-25 Forger....how much space is there on those carriers, not counting other planes needed for naval operations (bombers,ASW planes/helicopters and AEW planes/Helicopters)and can the J-15 operate out of these type of carrier?


PLA-Navy KA-31"Helix" AEW Helicopter

Can anyone verify that the PLA-Navy has its main base on Hainan Island? if so,then the PLA-Navy is REALLY,REALLY close....

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Apr 28 2011, 03:38 PM

Wow,there really are Pacifists out there....

At the risk of being myself called corny or lame,it seems that (some) people have forgotten the words of the Roman strategist Vegetius; Si vis Pacem Para Bellum (Those who wants peace,prepare for war)

If we do not have the Military strength (real or perceived),there will be some who will take advantage of our country no matter how seemingly powerful or rich we are. And let's face it malaysia doesn't have any real 'Big Brothers' looking out for our safety and as far as I know,Malaysian Armed forces rarely train with foreign militaries unlike our neighbors who train with them quite regularly.

Final note,an analogy: Is you are,say, a thief,do you break into a house with a big Rottweiler OR a house with a little chihuahua?

Nice....mmm....Dog stew.....just like uncle Ho used to make back in Hanoi.....

Anyway,a brutal reminder of the savagery of war....


Corpses of Vietnamese villagers killed in My Lai village......America,who is the monster here?

Do I detect a flaw in this statement? I usually thought the links on a NATO style Ammo belt will come apart once you take out a bullet from it? (Wow...nitpicking never has it so good!!)

Wow! an even more advanced form of nit-picking!!!! I bow to you,Lord-of-Nitpick!!!!

Whattt????
You mean the US no longer props up the Philippine Military?

Considering the really close ties the Philippines have with the US,I find this quite shocking....
after a little snooping,seems that the Philippine Army is really,really crap....doesn't even have a serious armored force,I mean who the Hell uses V-150 Commandos anymore?

Philippine Army V-150 Commando AFV in Digital camouflage.

Even ATM threw away its V-150s a long time ago....

Hahahahahaaaa.....this is soooo true....

I do believe that the original versions of the Soviet AK47s back from the 50s and 60s the receivers were machined out of high grade steel and the furniture were of good quality.So performance wise they were quite excellent.Most noticeably were the AK 47s that were made in East Germany (called the MPi-K).

As the Cold War was escalating,the Soviets needed to simplify production and designed the AKM as a cheaper,more simpler replacement for the high quality AK47s as they needed to fully equip the Warsaw pact countries that did not have the industrial military capacity to manufacture AK47s.These AKM were the ones responsible for the bad reputation the AK series has today.With pressed-steel or stamped receivers,the metal was thinner and the bolt did have a lot of space in contrast to the thicker metal of the machined receiver AK47s which the bolt fitted snugly.This caused vibration that would jeopardize accuracy.

Even worse was the proliferation of copies and constructs of the AK47 by countries which do not have the equipment or expertise of the Soviet state arsenals.Bulgarian and Hungarian-made rifles were quite acceptable,whereas the Chinese copy,the Type 56 rifle,was the worst of the bunch.Even the wooden furniture were made of wood laminates glued together instead of a single piece of wood.In the case of handgrips,this caused the different pieces of wood to expand differently in the heat as the barrel fired and affecting the barrel by slightly warping it,reducing accuracy.


Original AK 47 (top),AKM (center),Type 56 with folding bayonet(bottom)
Note the difference between AK47s solid steel receiver and the AKMs stamped steel receiver. Also note the rough wooden furniture build of the Type 56.

should still work fine,right? as the design is somewhat centralized in the AK 47 or AKM and not been modified much....
In that case i've always wondered...would the many copies of the M16/M4 made by different countries (UK,USA,Canada,South Korea....) can be mashed together into a frankenstein gun? Hmmmm

I feel this statement is a bit unfair....
Well,its true that the ATM didn't use much technology as most modern armies,but I think this is down to more than simple logistics and needs. Try to remember that the ATM only switched to a conventional army from a counterinsurgency army in the late 80s after the end of the 2nd darurat. Thus we had somewhat lower-tech heavy equipments (Scorpion AFVs,Condor APCs,Ferret Armored cars and OTO-Melara light 105mm howitzers) that are suited to counterinsurgency operations. Seeing that Malaysia is in no way a Military-Industrial country,it will obviously be exporting most of its military equipments from abroad.These cost a lot more than if a country is capable of building them themselves.

After seeing some parties going ballistic at the ATM's recent spending of the Military budget,I think that most people are still in the belief that an army consists of soldiers with a uniform and a rifle is good enough. This type of mindset must change before any significant changes in the ATM can be done. With armchair generals dictating that the "ATM needs this,not that..." will also not help much,as the furor over the purchases of the TLDM submarines and the recent AV8 controversy prove.It's like people want a more modern,technologically savvy ATM but are unwilling to pay for it.I'm not trying to belittle anyone,but please understand that the highest ranking military officers have practically spent their entire lives studying the science of war and I think that they have more precedence over any "defence analyst"....

As the statement that "the only way people learn are through their f***-ups" is quite right,but somewhat still unfair...
No army goes to war fully prepared for all exigencies and circumstances. There will always be a learning curve.the only question is how steep it will be. Its from experience that the tactics and equipments will evolve and improve. For example,during Operation Desert Storm,we can see coalition soldiers using very basic gear (Helmet,webbing belt w/pouches and Y-Harness and black canvas boots) and the "chocolate chip" BDU (which was developed in the 70s in case the US had to fight in the middle east in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur war).This gear was considered enough and was proven to be enough.


Why,not a single Interceptor body armor in sight!

It's after mistakes have been made and lessons learned that most armies improve and adapt their equipments.For example,early during the US invasion of Afghanistan(Enduring Freedom) and Iraq(Iraqi Freedom),basic trucks,M1 tanks and Humvees were used.During the conventional fighting that ensued,these vehicles worked perfectly,so there was not a lot of need to replace or upgrade these vehicles (during the invasion of Iraq,there was only ,like, 5 or 6 M1 Abrams tanks lost in action). It was after the fighting bogged down into an insurgency and tactics change that we start to see the emergence of M1A1 with TUSK upgrade,the up-armored Humvees and the multitude of MRAP vehicles like the Cougar. The Infantry was also upgraded,with soldiers getting more and more equipped and armored.We didn't see fully armored soldiers early in the war,do we?


US and French soldiers conduct training exercises in Afghanistan early in the War


Fully equipped US Soldiers on Patrol in Afghanistan

Want to get them fast? Get the ATM in a shooting war,then we'll probably see those equipments you all drool about....

Hmm..not exactly demanding,but shouldn't common equipments like lorries and utility vehicles (jeeps) should be easily manufactured by our automotive industry?Sure the initial stuff we make would be not as par with other countries' manufacture(AV4 anyone?...),but once you get the ball rolling the competitive market should keep things updated as manufacturers try new things and add reliability to keep abreast of the local competition.

I mean,these are nothing more than militarized commercial vehicles (aren't all military lorries and jeeps essentially are?).I'm no designer,but it seems to my amateur understanding these aren't THAT hard to design (any engineer and designer,feel free to elaborate....)and manufacture.

Maybe all they needs is a little encouragement? Maybe if MINDEF asked Proton and Perodua to design military utility vehicles we can get the ball rolling....

one last thing,I'm especially pissed off that it seems not a single company in Malaysia is considering manufacturing something as simple as Slat/Cage Armor for Malaysian Army Vehicles,even those vehicles serving abroad in very dangerous hotspots. I mean,seriously,is it so hard to make those?


Looks like some metal bars and slats put together.....

got bullied at school,calling big brother?

Oh No No No....

the C-5 Galaxy still rules the skies....


USAF C-5 Galaxy (top) and C-17 Globemaster (bottom)


Another thing,whos this Ishihara guy anyway? looks like a Hawkish Ultra-Conservative politician type to me....

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Jun 23 2011, 02:50 PM

Hmm...nampak macam beliau buat perbandingan antara light transport (C-130 Hercules),medium Transport (A 400M) and Heavy-lift transport (C-17 globemaster).mcm tengok first glance pun tau yang semua tu bukan dalam satu class Medium transport.

Kalau C-5 Galaxy tu dah dikelaskan sebagai Strategic Transport bukan heavy-lift lagi dah....


They can even carry a Chinook!