QUOTE(Fat & Fluffy @ Sep 24 2016, 07:31 PM)
dat last pic reminds me of thisdem arms
Military Thread V22
|
|
Sep 24 2016, 10:40 PM
Return to original view | Post
#1
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
|
|
|
Oct 1 2016, 02:12 AM
Return to original view | Post
#2
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
how do you define victory against Msia? flat out reach Putrajaya in <1 week?
complete disability of our military assets, rendering us defenseless? or complete wipe out until Perlis? just remember this, wars are not won on battlefields, its logistics you can have the strongest most invincible army/navy/airforce but if you have no ammo nor manpower, how do you field them? |
|
|
Oct 1 2016, 03:03 AM
Return to original view | Post
#3
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
QUOTE(AxeFire @ Oct 1 2016, 02:54 AM) Full control over Malaysia. Meaning Malaysia army wiped out, all Malaysian government removed and replaced with a gov. still kinda impossible, even if bulk of armed forces gone, guerillas and resistance fighters will appear and bla blaLook USA defeat Iraq army but it didn't stop there. The insurgency lasted over 10 years how will Sinkie maintain control with meagre amount of manpower also? though if complete victory by pure genocide then.. |
|
|
Oct 1 2016, 03:11 AM
Return to original view | Post
#4
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
QUOTE(yinchet @ Oct 1 2016, 03:05 AM) It depend on the war objectives and achieving it would be considered victory. yeah the lines these days are blurred so much. itll be victory in achieving objectives, not exactly a clear all out victory against [said] countryIt could be disable the enemey government or to force a surrender of the enemy government or to annex the state. |
|
|
Oct 1 2016, 05:01 AM
Return to original view | Post
#5
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
QUOTE(yinchet @ Oct 1 2016, 04:27 AM) Thing is easier say than done. thats even assuming Msia is gonna sit idly and wait for the chance for SG to stockpile weapons in preparationShock and awe needed massive preparation. For example sg have to call back most of the f15 and f16 from overseas, they also have to ask uncle sam to get most of their missile stockpile in gaum. Such drastic movement will raise suspicious to all neighbours country. we can sabotage the shipments for one ahh feels like COD MW1 first ship mission |
|
|
Oct 9 2016, 03:28 PM
Return to original view | Post
#6
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
QUOTE(waja2000 @ Oct 9 2016, 11:34 AM) CIWS in many Naval "think" already outdated weapon. due to, only refer to (Goalkeeper & Phalanx ciws gun) as a last resort system, its perfectly acceptable imo1) Due to fire rate 4xxx/per minutes, base on ammunition have, CIWS ammunition can empty in 1-2 minutes 2) CIWS only fire single direction, if facing multiple missile attack than still not help, 3) CIWS not good effective to against supersonic missile. 4) CIWS is complex system. many module, more complex maintanance, means extra space too. maybe need extra maintenance crew 5) CIWS use high electric power, like example Goalkeeper use 90kw power, Phalanx CIWS use 75kw of electric power, compare to Rheinmetall Millennium 35mm only use 15kw+ power 6) current new radar,ECM, countermeasure and sam missile more optimizing to counter ASM.... 7) Missile more provide show "power". Gatekeeper system diagram, look complex. ![]() I can't find Plalanx ciws system diagram, but just land base ![]() CIWS combined with the anti missile system is the point. they cover other system weaknesses to make sure the missile doesnt hit 1-2 CIWS isnt much, but imagine a standard fleet formation of several frigate, destroyers, cruisers etc etc. its one heck of a system to fight against |
|
|
Oct 9 2016, 03:59 PM
Return to original view | Post
#7
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
|
|
|
Oct 9 2016, 04:07 PM
Return to original view | Post
#8
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
QUOTE(KLboy92 @ Oct 9 2016, 04:04 PM) you can't combine those 20mm CIWS like that, that's a good way to get your own ships punctured by "friendly fire" CIWS thats it isnt it? CIWS isnt perfect in tracking targets, but hell, the advantages of more guns vs ASM is more welcomed than one single ship attempting to fend of multiple ASMsand here i am thinking what will happen when sea skimming missiles got near Russian ships with multiple Kashtan CIWS |
|
|
Oct 9 2016, 06:19 PM
Return to original view | Post
#9
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
QUOTE(DDG_Ross @ Oct 9 2016, 06:08 PM) seems like everyone here forgot that rmn used to have one ciws in its inventory budget and usage is mainly the main issue, honestly CIWS is a specific defensive weaponkd inderapura got phalanx ciws b4 the ship got destroyed by fire im sure rmn know pros & cons of owning such system if not for the meager budget that turns it into mere wishlist only kd sri inderapura phalanx ciws ![]() our Navy are looking for all rounder balanced variety based, where can be used offensively and defensively. cause seriously, were not really expecting to be overwhelmed by loads and loads of ASM attacks at all |
|
|
Oct 12 2016, 03:08 PM
Return to original view | Post
#10
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
QUOTE(KLboy92 @ Oct 12 2016, 02:18 PM) Because the cronies own road companies, so we build roads to nowhere all over our hutans. No one who has ever driven in KL would say our roads are "good" i can honestly say our highway roads are fantastic, at least the major onesSG roads are really systematic I must say urban roads? lol, plenty of holes and bumps |
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 02:08 AM
Return to original view | Post
#11
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
|
|
|
Oct 19 2016, 02:15 AM
Return to original view | Post
#12
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
QUOTE(Fat & Fluffy @ Oct 18 2016, 03:48 PM) Phase 2: multi-agency counter-terrorism exercise, SAF and Home Team agencies responded to a mock terrorist attack. jeesus their police has access to SCAR weapon system? Special Operations Task Force (SOTF) was deployed to neutralise armed terrorists who had taken hostages in a cinema. Soldiers from Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Explosives (CBRE) Defence Group were also activated to neutralise the IED threats found. » Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... « among police also there's different response unit |
|
|
Oct 19 2016, 02:20 AM
Return to original view | Post
#13
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
QUOTE(Pork Chop the 3rd @ Oct 18 2016, 04:10 PM) i jst watched Last Ship season 2...can someone share, why would a DDG arleigh-burke be afraid of an Astute-class submarine? i always thought DDG are sub hunter nowadays..... ill say the sub has a high chance compared to the DD.at least in all movies i saw submarines are afraid of destroyer..only in this TV Series The Last Ship is a DDG afraid of submarine.... knowledge sharing anyone? Apart from it's a tv-show... sekian 1. searching for a sub inside the vast ocean is a nightmare, imagine trying to find a needle in haystack 2. you dont know when or where will the sub strike, you cant always devot resources to track/locate the sub esp in situation in The Last Ship, where you cant really know when you can refuel and resupply 3. Arleigh Burke can do ASW but is it armed with ASW equipment at that moment? its known as primarily air defense ships IINM thats my take anyway |
|
|
Oct 19 2016, 03:02 AM
Return to original view | Post
#14
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
|
|
|
Oct 19 2016, 03:06 PM
Return to original view | Post
#15
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
|
|
|
Oct 19 2016, 10:10 PM
Return to original view | Post
#16
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
QUOTE(waja2000 @ Oct 19 2016, 04:30 PM) Basically means the NATO 5.56mm round doesnt pack enough punch to terminate target compared to 7.62mmIts the same as US police complaining of the standard issue 9mm vs .45. They swear that .45 works better against bigger baddies compared to 9mm where even after 4-5 shots the target still managed to run off or fight back QUOTE(Strike @ Oct 19 2016, 05:09 PM) like murican 5.56 not effective against taliban in iraq afghan 6.5mmi guess? But its still darn rarenow developing new round to replace 5.56 cant remember the caliber.. |
|
|
Oct 19 2016, 10:12 PM
Return to original view | Post
#17
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
QUOTE(TechSuper @ Oct 19 2016, 09:23 PM) even as early as Vietnam war when the black rifle were just newly introduced, plenty report come out from the goonies saying exactly the same. M193 is even worse than it's successor the M885 green tip. Black rifle? M16? but never with the 7.62 NATO - the term is DRT (Dead Right There) Many USMC units held onto their M14 battle rifles as long as possible before being forcibly replaced with the black rifle because of that Earlier M16 variants use 7.62mm IINM |
|
|
Oct 22 2016, 03:38 AM
Return to original view | Post
#18
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
|
|
|
Oct 23 2016, 03:06 AM
Return to original view | Post
#19
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
|
|
|
Oct 27 2016, 03:00 PM
Return to original view | Post
#20
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,254 posts Joined: Nov 2011 |
QUOTE(MilitaryMadness @ Oct 27 2016, 09:27 AM) Regardless of age or looks, M16s have a very rigid and dependable action, given you clean them regularly. It's also light and handy to use. not just cleaning discipline, rmb how horrible was the condition in Vietnam? mud and water everywhere Those stories of M16s jamming regularly originated in the 1960s at the moment M16s were still in early use, with early 5.56mm rounds that developed too much carbon deposits and not much cleaning discipline being instituted, soldiers even believed they had 'space age' rifles that don't need to be cleaned. improved ammunition and regular cleaning pretty much solved the problem. Also, fun fact: Malaysian Army even used the M16 way back in 1959 (even before the US military ever did), when it was still classified the AR-15. Back then the only users were Malaysian and South Vietnam. |
| Bump Topic Topic ClosedOptions New Topic |
| Change to: | 0.0297sec
0.57
7 queries
GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 4th December 2025 - 05:44 AM |