Jump to content

Leopard 2 tank upgrade


Vega
 Share

Recommended Posts

how different was his behavior? I kind of know this guy as he was from our unit before he got posted to 41 as a instructor.

He was a bit of sadist towards trainees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged

He was a bit of sadist towards trainees.

OIC. actually he didn't change at all. all along he is like that one. he kena 14 extra while he was in our unit for ill treatment.

 

I was expecting you to say he become a nice guy.

 

can you still remember his name?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this hard to believe. You tiagong one or fact? Why singapore? F5 range can fly from Vietnam to sg? How come not reported? I find it even hard to believe the pilot can squeeze his whole family into the already cramped cockpit and can survived the atmosphere without oxygen masks.

 

I think is a C130, not F-5.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this hard to believe. You tiagong one or fact? Why singapore? F5 range can fly from Vietnam to sg? How come not reported? I find it even hard to believe the pilot can squeeze his whole family into the already cramped cockpit and can survived the atmosphere without oxygen masks.

 

Only the Vietnamese family all small small size can cramp into the cockpit (or on a small scooter). Maybe his family was more like this but not reported accurately [:)] :

 

post-128138-0-90859900-1414736686.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think is a C130, not F-5.

 

F5 ... not C130... to be accurate tog with his wife and 1 kid...

 

1 more trivial .... majority of anti-personnel mines scattered in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos during tat era... made here 1....

 

tiagong only hor....

Edited by Coolad
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Only the Vietnamese family all small small size can cramp into the cockpit (or on a small scooter). Maybe his family was more like this but not reported accurately [:)] :

 

attachicon.gifimages.jpg

 

so satki

no wonder the guy grinning from ear to ear [laugh]

i wouild too!!!!!!! [crazy]

no go ippt, tio confine!!!!!!!!!

 

think alot of folks will be telling their wife they kena confined!!!!! [sly][laugh]

 

Tougher penalties for NSmen who skip IPPT
sgippt_st.jpg
Friday, October 31, 2014 - 12:58
Jermyn Chow
The Straits Times

SINGAPORE - Confinement, the bane of conscripted soldiers here, will continue to haunt reservists who skip the mandatory military fitness test three times in a row.

Instead of a $100 fine - the usual penalty currently - citizen soldiers will soon be locked up in camp, "forced" to exercise and still pay a monetary penalty.

 

RELATED STORIES
  • New physical training programme for IPPT is no cakewalk
  • Revised 3-station IPPT kicks in April 1 next year
  • NSmen get to do IPPT training at 'own time own target' with fitness-tracking devices
  • Here's how to do a proper push-up for the new IPPT, as demonstrated by Cyberpioneer

{C}

The new regime starts in January, with a five-day boot camp aimed at getting operationally ready national servicemen (NSmen) fit, said the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).

It comes amid recent efforts to toughen up citizen soldiers here and get them in shape.

Measures have also been taken to make the Individual Physical Proficiency Test (IPPT) less of a chore for NSmen who have to juggle family and work commitments. These include a stripped-down fitness test starting in April and more convenient venues to train for the test.

But despite giving them more leeway to keep fit, the military said it is inevitable that there will be persistent offenders.

"There will be a small number of NSmen who may not have a valid reason for not attempting their IPPT," the army's assistant chief of general staff (training), Colonel Ng Ying Thong, told The Straits Times.

Now, those who skip the IPPT three or more times are fined or risk being thrown into detention barracks - the army equivalent of prison - for up to a week. It is understood that recalcitrant defaulters have been spared the jail term and usually get away with a fine of $100.

Photo Gallery:
'More efficient' IPT a hit among some NSmen
Click on thumbnail to view photos. Source:
The Straits Times
  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OIC. actually he didn't change at all. all along he is like that one. he kena 14 extra while he was in our unit for ill treatment.

 

I was expecting you to say he become a nice guy.

 

can you still remember his name?

Cant remember but he gets emotional when we were briefed on the funeral arrangements that we have to attend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged

Cant remember but he gets emotional when we were briefed on the funeral arrangements that we have to attend.

It was a sad day. the whole armour formation was there at Mt Vernon....... [:(]

that year, your unit was the organizing unit for SAA. I remember you guys setting up the spectators stand at BMR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowadays it's all about tanks vs tanks.

 

Wonder why "tank destroyers", i.e. big guns mounted on lightly armoured chassis for combination of speed and firepower, such as those used in WW2, went out of style??

 

In WW2, there were the german marder, jagdtiger, jagdpanther, and the US wolverine and hellcat... this concept not so applicable to armoured warfare these days?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged

Nowadays it's all about tanks vs tanks.

 

Wonder why "tank destroyers", i.e. big guns mounted on lightly armoured chassis for combination of speed and firepower, such as those used in WW2, went out of style??

 

In WW2, there were the german marder, jagdtiger, jagdpanther, and the US wolverine and hellcat... this concept not so applicable to armoured warfare these days?

ever since the collapsed of USSR, the US suddenly realized their most formidable enemy is gone. all those heavy tanks like M60, M1 which they developed to face the T72 are of not much use as they don't foresee big scale tank battle anymore (until Gulf War 1).

 

What the US needs now is a quick respond task force which is able to deploy within short notice. in order to move within such short notice, they start to build light weight fighting vehicles like the stryker tanks which are below the 24 ton limit to be able to airlift or store in amphibious assault ship.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged

Nowadays it's all about tanks vs tanks.

 

Wonder why "tank destroyers", i.e. big guns mounted on lightly armoured chassis for combination of speed and firepower, such as those used in WW2, went out of style??

 

In WW2, there were the german marder, jagdtiger, jagdpanther, and the US wolverine and hellcat... this concept not so applicable to armoured warfare these days?

Most tank destroyers are turretless and limit aiming range. Also some are weak in armor or exposed at the top and vulnerable to ambush and flamethrowers.

 

Anyway I think tank destroyers did not disappear but rather merged with regular tanks in design. After all current main gun of tanks are capable to destroying armor, making them as potent as tank destroyers

ever since the collapsed of USSR, the US suddenly realized their most formidable enemy is gone. all those heavy tanks like M60, M1 which they developed to face the T72 are of not much use as they don't foresee big scale tank battle anymore (until Gulf War 1).

 

What the US needs now is a quick respond task force which is able to deploy within short notice. in order to move within such short notice, they start to build light weight fighting vehicles like the stryker tanks which are below the 24 ton limit to be able to airlift or store in amphibious assault ship.

Russian are catching up too.

They just announced the T-99 Armata

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform

 

Predicted to perform better than M1 tanks

ever since the collapsed of USSR, the US suddenly realized their most formidable enemy is gone. all those heavy tanks like M60, M1 which they developed to face the T72 are of not much use as they don't foresee big scale tank battle anymore (until Gulf War 1).

 

What the US needs now is a quick respond task force which is able to deploy within short notice. in order to move within such short notice, they start to build light weight fighting vehicles like the stryker tanks which are below the 24 ton limit to be able to airlift or store in amphibious assault ship.

Russian are catching up too.

They just announced the T-99 Armata

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform

 

Predicted to perform better than M1 tanks

Edited by Pocus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowadays it's all about tanks vs tanks.

 

Wonder why "tank destroyers", i.e. big guns mounted on lightly armoured chassis for combination of speed and firepower, such as those used in WW2, went out of style??

 

In WW2, there were the german marder, jagdtiger, jagdpanther, and the US wolverine and hellcat... this concept not so applicable to armoured warfare these days?

Newer weapons and platforms are getting smaller and packing more punch. Traditional tanks are vulnerable if left exposed without adequete infantry protection if they move through urban areas too slowly. You see a lot of Syrian armour chewed up by RPGs, mines and IEDs in their civil war.

 

The main problem with tank commander's mindset is they inadvertently sacrifice maneuverability when operating in build up area. The believe in their armour gave them a false sense of security. What can be seen can be hit. What can be hit can be destroyed. In the age old race between spear and shield, the spear always have the edge. We have not even talked about the threats from the air, even in open terrain.

 

Main battle tanks are really impressive but there is a nagging doubt they will go the way of the Battleship. They present a too much a fat target on the battlefield and the logistic train is just too cumbersome. And plus the issue they are seriously expensive.

 

Doctrines either has to change to ensure their survivability and usefulness or the tank design. Either go bigger to defeat the threats (that comes with another whole lot of problems) or go smaller, cheaper to leverage on quantity.

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged

Most tank destroyers are turretless and limit aiming range. Also some are weak in armor or exposed at the top and vulnerable to ambush and flamethrowers.

 

Anyway I think tank destroyers did not disappear but rather merged with regular tanks in design. After all current main gun of tanks are capable to destroying armor, making them as potent as tank destroyers

 

Russian are catching up too.

They just announced the T-99 Armata

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform

 

Predicted to perform better than M1 tanks

 

Russian are catching up too.

They just announced the T-99 Armata

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform

 

Predicted to perform better than M1 tanks

M1 is not stopping there too. someone spotted the so call M1A3 with a much bigger turret.

rumour its using auto loader and 140mm.

 

M1A3_3.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged

Newer weapons and platforms are getting smaller and packing more punch. Traditional tanks are vulnerable if left exposed without adequete infantry protection if they move through urban areas too slowly. You see a lot of Syrian armour chewed up by RPGs, mines and IEDs in their civil war.

 

The main problem with tank commander's mindset is they inadvertently sacrifice maneuverability when operating in build up area. The believe in their armour gave them a false sense of security. What can be seen can be hit. What can be hit can be destroyed. In the age old race between spear and shield, the spear always have the edge. We have not even talked about the threats from the air, even in open terrain.

 

Main battle tanks are really impressive but there is a nagging doubt they will go the way of the Battleship. They present a too much a fat target on the battlefield and the logistic train is just too cumbersome. And plus the issue they are seriously expensive.

 

Doctrines either has to change to ensure their survivability and usefulness or the tank design. Either go bigger to defeat the threats (that comes with another whole lot of problems) or go smaller, cheaper to leverage on quantity.

even the experts in tank warfare, the Israelis, learn it the hard way too. their Merkava, putting survivability as their first priority in their tank design is not spare. all Merkava 4 has stop production until they solve the problem of survival in urban warfare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...