I REFER to the news article on the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) providing more protection for the canvas covered five tonne trucks ('Increased protection for troops'; ST, May 21). The level of protection is supposedly for low-intensity conflicts. From the picture in the article, it appears armoured plates are attached to the sides of the truck.
The low-intensity conflicts the SAF is thinking of must be against an opposition armed with sticks and stones. That is the only way troops in that armoured truck can survive.
If the truck encounters an improvised explosive device (IED), the consequences will not be good. Generally, an IED blast is not focused and vents upwards.
In the case of the armoured truck, the armoured side walls and wooden plank floor will channel force upwards through where the troops are. The armoured plates now become a liability. If that is not lethal enough, the two spare tyres carried below the truck bed will come crashing through like a battering ram.
Now in the case of a pressure plate landmine, with the truck travelling forward, the explosive force will direct the front tyres, axle and other related automotive parts upwards. All this shrapnel will go into the front cabin with relative ease.
The firing ports are usually overrated and a grenade hazard. A system like a remotely operated machine gun will be safer, for example, a common remotely operated weapon station (Crows). Last but not least, it needs an additional protective sheet to trigger the fuses of rocket-propelled grenades.
If Singapore Technologies can design a armoured personnel carrier like the Bionix, it should not be a stretch to design a vehicle with more protection. After all, the principles of these vehicles are fairly simple: no load above the wheels, smooth and V-shaped hull for the bottom of the truck, and civilian automotive transmission.
The five-tonne trucks should carry cargo, not troops.
Alfred Loo Swee Kian
Melissa Chen, the hardcore Singapore basher (Part I – Amos Yee)
-
Melissa Chen, a Singapore national based in the United States, is a
free-speech advocate, or in her own words as quoted by Lester Kok, a
“free-speech absol...
3 years ago
3 comments:
i dunt think it was design flaws, i guess it is because he didnt read the original article carefully. There's a difference between low intensity conflicts(mentioned by Alfred) and low threat (mentioned by SAF in May 15 Article).
it was also mentioned in that article an AOA floored version is currently being produced. so yup =)
by the way i am very encouraged by ur blog. good to know another bro in christ.
Wow! :D Same here too bro... really very pleasantly surprised by your comment. :) And gee, tt's an observant point... "intensity" versus "threat"... shall read the article more thoroughly! =) anyway how'd u come across my blog? :)
bless,
YA
You don't drive 5-tonnes trucks into unsecured conflict zones.. Trucks are for both troops and supplies, in the rear.
Where the action is, yeah, that's the place for the Bionix and other armoured vehicles.
Trucks can go faster, use less fuel, are easier to maintain, and carry more people/supplies at one go. They aren't armoured. That's why they don't go where they're not supposed to.
This person sounds a bit smart-alecky. But to give him the benefit of the doubt, well, maybe he is genuinely concerned.. Who knows?
Post a Comment