Should SAF acquire RPGs from Russia?

[angtauchwee]

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/4936/rpgfireteamgazarr7.th.jpg (http://img152.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rpgfireteamgazarr7.jpg)

As seen in Iraq, Gaza/West Bank and in Southern Lebanon, the RPG-7 reloadable, shoulder-fired, antitank and antipersonnel rocket propelled grenade launcher has been very, very effective against superior forces like the US army and IDF (Israeli Defence Forces). They are cheap, easy to operate and devastating, esepcially when fired in salvos against armoured targets.

So, the question is, why isn't the SAF acquriing this battle-tested, battle-proven weapon? It is not high-tech but extremely effective.

[DeadlyDay]

Well u dunno much about the alternatives for this weapon. Just like why dun we use AK 47 which is like cheap too and war tested

[angtauchwee]

Well u dunno much about the alternatives for this weapon. Just like why dun we use AK 47 which is like cheap too and war tested

Precisely. AK-47 is the best assault rifle there is today. Not only cheap but easy to maintain. But national pride and poilitical considerations compel other countries to waste money and effort producing their own makes. Why bother?

[jc32258]

I asked some officer cadets during the Temasek Seminar, why they prefered using disposable, one-time use AT weaps similar to the LAW instead of reusable launchers like the RPG. Their answer is that it is more effective against tanks or bunkers and that as a grenade, it does less damage.

Dunno about you guys but I still think the RPG makes more sense, carrying one launcher and several grenades instead of several launchers. I heard that after firing, they just fill up the launchers with cement for training, for lack of anything else to do.

Anyways, is the AK-47 really better than the SAR 21? I think the M16 or SAR 21 is more stable, right? Particularly in mid-long range.

[Astute33]

I only handled the M16 and SAR21... comparing these 2, SAR21 is more accurate, it is slightly heavier than M16, but it is also shorter and less likely to obstruct combat movement, I would say it is a well designed weapon.

One thing about real life war tested and non tested is that during our training, we tend to keep our weapons well maintained (clean and well oiled). So the performance is usually ok.

I read from books that the AK47 is really good due to its robustness, it doesn't get jammed easily even when it gets wet or some dirt gets trapped in the weapon. It is a different story for M16, I think those who used it should know what I mean. Even a well maintained weapon will sometimes get jammed, if it gets wet or dirty, it gets even worse.

[angtauchwee]

I've fired all three -- M16, SAR 21 and AK-47. I fired the AK-47 at a commercial firing range operated by the PLA in Hainan (spent almost $800, lucky they accepted VISA). The AK is a no-fuss, sturdy, trustworthy rifle. If run out of bullets, use the wooden butt to wallop your enemy or use the thin bayonet to poke some holes in him. The recoil is stronger than for M-16 and SAR 21 (which has virtually no recoil), but you can get used to it and adjust your firing pressure as you do so.

My verdict? Give me the AK anytime.