Yep, getting what you needed
while we are here chatting about the efficiency of the current crop of troops...what is the average age of the troopie in the SANDF at the moment anyone have any ideas?
Also those who served in the mid 1980s will agree that the level of discipline enjoyed during those times even though we were national servicemen far exceeds that of the current army, the CIT references serves to re-enforce this.
Ave age. Can't give you a definite number, but until very recently (and currently) that was one of the biggest problems the SANDF was facing. It had/has no exit strategy (at least which it can publicise) for integration members. This led to the MSD System (sort of voluntary national service) being implemented. A very large % of the troops therefore now deployed are MSDS member. With the influx of 18 to early20somethings the ave age has drastically decreased. It has however proven quite difficult to get rid of the "old wood". You therefore still get 45year old troops floating around. Virtually no new members are at present getting old style PF contracts, only short term ones that can be cancelled as you get too old for you pay grade.Originally Posted by sierratango
Discipline is something totally different. Unfortunately it is a sad reflection on our society, not just the military. Look around you everywhere. Do you remember schools in the early 80's? Society in general. By late 80's discipline in the army was already more lax than before. It is now a big problem though, and, as I stated above, it is a matter of political will. Every new chief of the army/staff etc has the same story: "I will sort this problem out". And the result stays the same. Nothing done. A zero tolerance policy is however slowly being implemented (see comments re: exit strategy above), but this leads to many other problems as there is not a lot of scope for discretion. I don’t want all my rifleman to be sweet angels...they are soldiers after all.
We are however also now living in a human rights obsessed litigious society. Most of the stuff done in your day would land you in jail today. Add the whole race and *** issue to this as well (and not just black/white, but different tribes, groupings, sexes etc), and you can imagine the potential mess. It is not just the army that has changed, but society in general as well. However, no denying it, there are discipline problems, just don’t take the media too seriously. In the old days the army could do no wrong (regime press) or right (liberal press), you chose your newspaper for the version you wanted. Now it is simpler. The SANDF cannot do anything right. The media is mostly out to portray the SANDF as negatively as possible, despite a lot of positives mixed in with the negative.
Last edited by exT70; 03-23-2007 at 10:36 AM.
This is what I was alluding to in my post above. F. C. Erasmus became Minister of Defence in 1948 and immediately launched a vendetta against officers who were seen as too "English" or British-oriented. Maj. Gen. Everard Poole, who was Deputy Chief of General Staff and scheduled to take over as CGS (head of Defence Force at that time), was promptly sent off as SA Representative to the Allied Control Commission for Berlin. Poole was probably our best officer in WW2 and commanded the 6th SA Armoured Div in Italy. There were other examples such as Jimmy Durrant who I mentioned above. He resigned as Director-General of the SAAF citing "irreconcilable differences with the Minister of Defence". Other officers were sacked in the infamous "Midnight Ride" in 1953- dispatch riders took the involuntary retirement papers to the men's homes during the evening.
There was a general attempt to "de-Anglicize" the SADF. Defence spending was cut, ranks were changed (most reverted to the old ones within a few years, except for Commandant- today Lt.Col. again), and attempts were made to marginalise some of the traditional "English" regiments (nevermind that a large percentage of their men were Afrikaans-speaking). Erasmus had a particular problem with the Imperial Light Horse who he wanted to disband totally. Eventually they were kept on as the Light Horse Regiment. Thankfully by the early 1960s common sense had returned to a large degree.
..............Hoefyster team awaits go-ahead
South African acquisition officials are hoping that they will "soon" receive authorisation to go ahead with the much-delayed new-generation Project Hoefyster infantry combat vehicle (ICV).The joint Armscor/South African National Defence Force project team has negotiated a best price offer from a Denel-led consortium of ZAR8.4 billion (USD1.15 billion) for 264 vehicles in five different configurations.
[QUOTE=exT70;2371940]ExT70: thanks for the info...so the tank shown in your "black roundings" pics is the more modern Mk 2, not an upgraded Mk 1B...or are they one in the same? Also, do you have a good pic of the Rooikat 105 shown at the exhibition?
[quote=Jim Warford;2389372]Exactly where one should draw the line between the various upgrades would only become clear once upgraded vehicles start coming into service. As the Mk1B never became a general issue vehicle, officially it would seem that the answer to this question would remain one for guesswork and opinions. In the same vane, until such a time at the so called Mk2 comes into service we won’t know what precisely constitutes the Mk2, and even thereafter we won’t be able to compare it with the Mk1B, because we don’t know exactly what the Mk1B was supposed to have been. Makes any sense?
Back to gross personal conjecture not backed by any personal knowledge: the initial Mk1B’s that I saw (1990) had upgraded hull (armour and all automotive gear) and uparmoured turret. The “inside workings” (FCS etc) were still basically the same as that of the Mk1A that I served on at the time. During that timeframe I got to play with some of the stuff then in development and testing (and thus not in the then Mk1B), which were mostly gunnery and turret inside related. On the “Mk2” being first shown, it seemed that the idea was for a totally new turret (TTD type/spin-off) on an upgraded Mk1B hull. On the “Mk2” shown at AAD’06, this was not the case. Only an extensively upgraded Centurion turret. But with lots of new toys inside (which were not on the 1B when I saw it many, many moons ago). Starting with commander’s sight system (hunter/killer ability)(easiest ID of what seem to be dif between Mk1B and Mk2 on photos) and ending with different stab motors on the floor. The turret add-ons also for some reason looked different from what I remembered from the Mk1B, but can’t specify why (17years ago), just a feeling. Would also hazard a guess the composites used in the “boxes” would be different.
Saw you got a Rooikat 105 pic up on Tanknet.
Unfortunate did not get a good pic (1 only) of the Rooikat from the outside (sun from behind veh, taking pic into sun, so did not try too hard), but took quite a couple inside etc. Had very limited time during AAD06. Will remedy that this year. Despite what the info board says, I seriously doubt that the veh at AAD06 was the 105 version. Barrel does not look like the 105 one. I have pics of the breech etc as well, and it looks like the plain 76breech. But then again, the GT7 105 might look like the GT4 76. I don’t know.
And does this not all sound way too familiar….
And combine this with a period of relative peace and the currrent low threat environment…
And wha-lah, you have the SANDF of today
(which is a very unfair statement in part, things have been improving in some ways over the last couple of years, there are lots of people working towards fixing things, in a very difficult, complex and taxing environment)
G-7 or not
Is this a version of Denel G-7 or not.
It looks like a G-7. Not 100% sure if it is.
Request
Can any of the South African Friends post some photos of the following:
a. ZA-35(SPAAG)
b. Kentron ZA-HVM(SPAAM)
c. Kentron SAHV-IR(TAAM)
d. G-6 52cal( new photos please)
Thankyou.
Here is the latest SADF video made for the SADF Photos website!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acAuwNLByEQ
As usual I am unable to embed the video!
Also on LiveLeak at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eed_1175444101
Last edited by Clint_Durban; 04-03-2007 at 07:01 AM.
I won't exactly be offering my services as a Leo expert, but I don't think this is it. Wrong recoil system, wrong muzzle brake (Leo has pepperpot), wrong towing system (Leo hitches at leg), wrong elevators etc. I think this is a concept of the the UK of US system. Have a couple of pics as well as the PDF brosjure. No idea how to post PDF doc.Is this a version of Denel G-7 or not.
Hmm I do not totally agree with you. The recoil system is very similair and the towing system is exactly the same from what I have seen. It could be a G-7 however I wouldn't bet my money on it.
Please see attached PDF brosjures for G7.
Gun cradle is different. Recoil system is different. G7 does not have a muzzle tow, but tows via legs like G5.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002artillery/villers.pdf
http://www.denel.co.za/Landsystems/LS_ArtillerySysTowedGun.pdf
The picture you posted is of the V2C2 105mm US (BAE) competitor of the G7 and the picture itself is from the V2C2 brosjure.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote