Army equipment that should have seen service

No,singapore quite sensibly regards actually fighting in its own city as having pretty much lost the war. It instead plans to quickly attack north,which is why its SPG systems for example are much narrower than those of many others-they are designed to fit the narrow tracks of malaysian plantations.
Good idea if they're fighting Malaysia. Not such a good one if they're not.

(Granted, Malaysia staying out of the war if someone else is landing in Singapore probably means Singapore screwed up...)
 
?? What mattered (and still matters) is bullet muzzle velocity, weight, shape and diameter. The .250-3000 was just fine for the automatic rifle needs.
Um...how do you think muzzle velocity is generated? Powder performance. The existing .250 Savage was workable, but could have been made better with IMR powders.
 
Good idea if they're fighting Malaysia. Not such a good one if they're not.

(Granted, Malaysia staying out of the war if someone else is landing in Singapore probably means Singapore screwed up...)
Singapore is just a city. It cannot, ever, allow ground fighting in its own city. Not only would the accompanying destruction hit literary 100% of the national territory, something not even germany in WW2 had to endure, it also necesarrily means Singapore has lost controll of its waterways, which spells doom for millions of people perced together on a small island.

Any plans for city fighting on part of singapore (which isn't low-scale raid defense) is literary wasted, as it only becomes relevant in their last death spasms.

Much better to attack against the one country which threatens them, while relying on superior naval and air force assets against other countries.
 
Um...how do you think muzzle velocity is generated? Powder performance. The existing .250 Savage was workable, but could have been made better with IMR powders.
.250 Savage worked as-is. That it could be improved - it certainly could.
 
Singapore is just a city. It cannot, ever, allow ground fighting in its own city. Not only would the accompanying destruction hit literary 100% of the national territory, something not even germany in WW2 had to endure, it also necesarrily means Singapore has lost controll of its waterways, which spells doom for millions of people perced together on a small island.

Any plans for city fighting on part of singapore (which isn't low-scale raid defense) is literary wasted, as it only becomes relevant in their last death spasms.

Much better to attack against the one country which threatens them, while relying on superior naval and air force assets against other countries.
Bold assumption that they would necessarily have superior naval and air forces against anyone wanting to conduct naval landings against them.

The point of a city defense strategy, in any case, wouldn't be to actually win, but to make "winning" so expensive for the attacker that no one would bother. Kind of like nukes, but without actually having to have nukes. Anyway, the point was that attacking Malaysia is obviously only useful if they're fighting Malaysia, which, granted, is the most likely opponent. But if they're fighting Indonesia or China or what-have-you and Malaysia is neutral (or even allied to Singapore), then attacking Malaysia is pointless. That's all.
 
I assume that's in reference to the Pz68's fire control vs the fire control on the Leopard 2
I noted the mention of a human factors problem. Over burdened tank commander =- dead tank. Lessons learned France 1940. Louisiana Maneuvers in the United States (1941) about the same time. In no land war machine is ergonomics so important. First shot laid on is first kill.
 
I noted the mention of a human factors problem. Over burdened tank commander =- dead tank. Lessons learned France 1940. Louisiana Maneuvers in the United States (1941) about the same time. In no land war machine is ergonomics so important. First shot laid on is first kill.
Quite a few Cold War tanks had the commander also use the optical rangefinder (or at least gave him the option to use it), and the early Pz 68s certainly relied on it instead of a laser rangefinder. I'm not sure the "overburdened" point is really about the FCS, more a general idea that you want the commander to actually command and observe instead of using the cupola MG or the rangefinder. Gotta find more about that FCS though
 
Quite a few Cold War tanks had the commander also use the optical rangefinder (or at least gave him the option to use it), and the early Pz 68s certainly relied on it instead of a laser rangefinder. I'm not sure the "overburdened" point is really about the FCS, more a general idea that you want the commander to actually command and observe instead of using the cupola MG or the rangefinder. Gotta find more about that FCS though
One must ask about the age of the system in the training tank, and if the heater problem was fixed. I cannot just take a one off testimonial in a Reddit posting and accept it and that is a fair point. I do note that the crewman did mention that a well trained crew could unburden the tank commander and that is kind of significant. WHY should the tank commander have to worry about his crew? Were they not to invoke a procedure that would futz the radio or set off the main gun by accident? Those kind of quick fix training workarounds could show up in a tank with "problems".
I also have to consider that the Swiss general in charge of that circus, put it in writing, that the PZ68 was not fit for war. Why would he do that?
 
One must ask about the age of the system in the training tank, and if the heater problem was fixed. I cannot just take a one off testimonial in a Reddit posting and accept it and that is a fair point. I do note that the crewman did mention that a well trained crew could unburden the tank commander and that is kind of significant. WHY should the tank commander have to worry about his crew? Were they not to invoke a procedure that would futz the radio or set off the main gun by accident? Those kind of quick fix training workarounds could show up in a tank with "problems".
I also have to consider that the Swiss general in charge of that circus, put it in writing, that the PZ68 was not fit for war. Why would he do that?
What about the testimonial in the article you cited earlier?
"I am not sure if you should call the Panzer 68 a failure. It certainly had its limitations but I would have taken on a Centurion or AMX any time or even a M60. I don’t think any of them could reverse without having to come to a standstill first. Certainly not Centurion or AMX, not sure about the M60.
Also keep in mind that the panzer 68 was a defense weapon and not an assault tank, so for its mission it wasn’t that bad at that time. I never experienced the turret firing or turning involuntarily. We’ve heard gossip but took it as that, just gossip."
 
What about the testimonial in the article you cited earlier?
"I am not sure if you should call the Panzer 68 a failure. It certainly had its limitations but I would have taken on a Centurion or AMX any time or even a M60. I don’t think any of them could reverse without having to come to a standstill first. Certainly not Centurion or AMX, not sure about the M60.
Also keep in mind that the panzer 68 was a defense weapon and not an assault tank, so for its mission it wasn’t that bad at that time. I never experienced the turret firing or turning involuntarily. We’ve heard gossip but took it as that, just gossip."
Foreign testing would answer these questions. How did Thailand respond to the "fixed" 68/88 series? I mean the Swiss government did institute a retrofix for the PZ68. Did you experience the tank after the fixes?
 
Foreign testing would answer these questions. How did Thailand respond to the "fixed" 68/88 series? I mean the Swiss government did institute a retrofix for the PZ68.
No clue, I haven't found anything about the Swiss offer to sell Thailand tanks beyond the Tanks Encyclopedia article. There's a few sources that mention an attempt to sell to Thailand, but none specify why the bid failed.

Did you experience the tank after the fixes?
Bruh, if either of us had first hand experience with the tank we'd just say so rather than citing articles and testimony.
 
Bruh, if either of us had first hand experience with the tank we'd just say so rather than citing articles and testimony.
True that, which is why I would love to get something official like the text of that Swiss General's letter and the minutes of the parliament's investigatory committee or Thun factory documents.

Second hand is never good when actual test results can be obtained. Any takers?
 
Not directly no, it isn't. Two different weapons, decades apart.
Same problemstrying to get a portable automatic weapon, still with wrong takedown solutions. As to the decades apart situation, when it is the right solution... the FN MAG is at its core an upside down BAR, so that ought to tell you something.
 
Last edited:
Same problemstrying to get a portable automatic weapon, still with wrong takedown solutions. As to the decades apart situation, when it is the right solution... the FN MAG is at its core an upside down BAR, so that ought to tell you something.
All it tells me is that FN like many other small arms manufacturers is endlessly copying some other inventive soul. It conveys nothing to me about the Madsen.
 
All it tells me is that FN like many other small arms manufacturers is endlessly copying some other inventive soul. It conveys nothing to me about the Madsen.
It tells you the Madsen system and the Reising both failed the test of use and that Browning systems, along with the Holek brothers, Leonard Vincent, Louis Stange, Stoner, Sam Colt, Henrie Mercie, and Kalishnokov are system inventors whose work has withstood the crucible of war for decades.

I could toss Mauser in, but there are not many cyclics that use that operator system anymore. Oh, I forgot Odkalek, and the nutjob, Williams.
 
It tells you the Madsen system and the Reising both failed the test of use and that Browning systems, along with the Holek brothers, Leonard Vincent, Louis Stange, Stoner, Sam Colt, Henrie Mercie, and Kalishnokov are system inventors whose work has withstood the crucible of war for decades.

I could toss Mauser in, but there are not many cyclics that use that operator system anymore. Oh, I forgot Odkalek, and the nutjob, Williams.
I am not suggesting that Madsen was a successful system. I am suggesting it was an adequate system. Nice list of names but that is all it is.
 
The specific circumstances of Singapore's strategic situation mean that the Singaporeans have about three days to advance into southern Malaysia and secure the reservoirs before the city runs out of water. Once these are secure, they have significantly more strategic and tactical flexibility. Desalination capacity is increasing, but they simply don't have the money to build anything beyond the bare minimum to keep the population from going thirsty, and everyone knows that those plants are going to be immediate targets.
Interesting. Your saying Singapore gets it's fresh water from Malaysia? I had no idea. They better maintain good relations with them. Singapore is obviously a country with no strategic depth. Can they actually invade, and occupy Johor, and control the Straights of Malacca? I understand there are some deputes, but that Singapore, and Malaysia are allies, is there any serious danger of a war?
 
No,singapore quite sensibly regards actually fighting in its own city as having pretty much lost the war. It instead plans to quickly attack north,which is why its SPG systems for example are much narrower than those of many others-they are designed to fit the narrow tracks of malaysian plantations.
Which is one reason the Scorpion family is the size it is. It was intended to be able to navigate between the trees on a rubber plantation.
 
Top