Jump to content

Purchase of armoured personnel carriers 'in national interest'


webfact

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

18 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

They are used to protect the voters in the "next" election. :w00t:

Dreamed of living in Thailand for forty years.  Now a Johnny Cash song keeps playing in my head: "I keep my eyes wide open all the time..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JAG said:

They're really intended to carry infantry, to accompany the tanks. Tanks without infantry are vulnerable to the enemies infantry, modern man portable anti tank weapons are very effective against tanks, particularly when fired at their side and rear. Tanks are very good at shock action, punching a hole through a defended position, and taking on other tanks, but they need accompanying infantry to protect them, and they cannot hold ground once they have taken it - only infantry can do that. So these armoured personnel carriers (APCs) are designed to carry infantry across the battlefield, inside sufficient armoured protection to stop casualties from shell splinters and small arms fire, whilst keeping up with the tanks. So they need to be concentrated with the tanks.

 

Now if you want to use them to prevent pesky redshirts from trashing radio stations or whatever, then they have an initial deterrent effect. However, if those pesky redshirts have any military training (remember that Thailand has conscription) they may realize that by forcing the APC guarding the building to close down its hatches (stones or petrol bombs) it becomes much less effective, observation from inside is difficult. If it comes to a real punch up then a few APCs in an urban environment are very vulnerable to RPGs and such like, especially if fired from above onto the thinner top armour.

 

If you want something to use down south then a "mine protected vehicle" is both cheaper and more practical. Better still, patrol on foot off the roads....

Ok JAG i bow to your superior knowledge, and know its true seen enough about tanks that they are indeed vunerable. I just thought that these carriers would be hooked up to infantry units not tank units. But the way you explain it is good.

 

I like those pesky red (and yellow) shirts not to trash anything and do believe these things act as a deterrent. I don't know if you ever worked with Dutch army conscript.. they were the worst of the worst before we had a professional army (not sure how good they are now at least they are interested as its a job not forced to be there). I think you will understand that conscription in Thailand as in Holland means nothing about learning and the skills are minimal. They would not come close to someone like you with real experience and a real education. For them these things (and me) would look like they mean business.

 

Now about your observation about the south ill reason the same i reason about exercise.. striving for perfection is nice... but its not practical. Your walking strategy is best but when have you last seen Thais walk that way ? It just does not happen so its better to use these things as otherwise it would not happen anyway. Mine protected vehicles might indeed be even better and cheaper (would mean more for the same money more soldiers protected). So yes I agree there too bad they did not buy them. I still think this purchase is one of the smarter purchases (if you compare them with subs and tanks).

 

Again I am against the increased army spending (percentage wise of the budget not in absolute numbers as those never mean a thing). And percentage wise the spending went up.. that is totally wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, robblok said:

I think you will understand that conscription in Thailand as in Holland means nothing about learning and the skills are minimal.

Being a conscript myself, I can tell you that my training was no difference from the regular soldiers. The training that I received will ensured that I am 'operationally ready'. For Thailand, I doubt it will be any difference. After their 2 years (red card conscripts) or 1 year (volunteers), they are expected to be operational ready and ready to fight alongside regular soldiers. The 1 or 2 years will be adequate to cover months of basic training which then leads to other accelerated or specialized training. Conscripts anywhere will have the same skill as regular soldiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Being a conscript myself, I can tell you that my training was no difference from the regular soldiers. The training that I received will ensured that I am 'operationally ready'. For Thailand, I doubt it will be any difference. After their 2 years (red card conscripts) or 1 year (volunteers), they are expected to be operational ready and ready to fight alongside regular soldiers. The 1 or 2 years will be adequate to cover months of basic training which then leads to other accelerated or specialized training. Conscripts anywhere will have the same skill as regular soldiers.

I am sure you were not from Holland then, our conscripts were trained in drinking beer. Everyone found the army to be a total joke and wast of time. That is why we now have a professional army. I don't think that conscripts here regard the army any more serious then we did back in the Netherlands. I am not sure if you read the news before... but conscripts were used to clean houses of generals and other menial work... that does not sound like good military training. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, robblok said:

I am sure you were not from Holland then, our conscripts were trained in drinking beer. Everyone found the army to be a total joke and wast of time. That is why we now have a professional army. I don't think that conscripts here regard the army any more serious then we did back in the Netherlands. I am not sure if you read the news before... but conscripts were used to clean houses of generals and other menial work... that does not sound like good military training. 

Don't disagree with you. Holland disbanded conscription some 20 years ago and controversy surrounds the use of conscripts for peace time operation. Not so in my country but we also have some conscripts that are may have encountered medical issues and have to be posted to soft jobs like the Thai conscripts. Rest submit to same training like the regulars like in Thailand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Don't disagree with you. Holland disbanded conscription some 20 years ago and controversy surrounds the use of conscripts for peace time operation. Not so in my country but we also have some conscripts that are may have encountered medical issues and have to be posted to soft jobs like the Thai conscripts. Rest submit to same training like the regulars like in Thailand. 

I highly doubt that conscripts in Thailand are trained any better than those in my country and to think that they were trained at the level of your country is something I disagree with. I think that conscripts in Thailand learn little if nothing.. if you are from the UK then you have always had a good military tradition not so much over here or in my country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2017 at 5:10 AM, Somtamnication said:

They are used to protect the voters in the "next" election. :w00t:

what is needed is personal carriers that can go under water to escort the 2 new subs that are to be equipped with re-tractable wheels .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't disagree with you. Holland disbanded conscription some 20 years ago and controversy surrounds the use of conscripts for peace time operation. Not so in my country but we also have some conscripts that are may have encountered medical issues and have to be posted to soft jobs like the Thai conscripts. Rest submit to same training like the regulars like in Thailand. 

I was a conscript in Holland for 21 month total waist of time I think that's valid to Thailand also. I see conscripts cleaning army beaches, doing gardening, being staff in army stores, being staff in army golf courses being staff in army hotels. So better have a army doing their core businesses with real professionals.

Sent from my BLL-L22 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2017 at 7:20 AM, Ricardo said:

If the equipment these new APCs will replace is some 40-50 years old, then they've done better than the schoolchildrens' tablet-computers "just like mine", in which the previous administration 'invested'. :wink:

 

But all major investment should be carefully weighed & considered, before decisions are made, as some bad ones (like the new submarine) are still slipping through !

Looks like someone at the top is about to retire, as somebody appears to be about to get his last big payday according to Thai military regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2017 at 9:19 AM, hansnl said:

I may presume you have the same complaints about your own government buying military hardware?

Face reality, the existing hardware is nearly 50 years old and at the very end of its lifespan.

That is really enough reason to buy replacements.

Are they needed?

The international relations say yes.

Definitely!

But have you had a good look at the public hospitals . Something which the people of Thailand really need more that modern armoured cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2017 at 9:48 AM, Eric Loh said:

I can understand any nation need of upgrading military hardware. Problem is that the Thai military had bad records of poor buying decisions and corruptions. Too many examples of bad buys like the GT200, blimp and the infamous aircraft carrier and these were the only we know and perhaps more we don't. The submarines are heading towards another bad buy and many critics have thrown caution to the operational challenges. And surely the timing during this period of economic weakness and low revenue collection should have knocked some sense to the military to delay the purchase but they persisted for reasons of their own and that they hold the power. This is so wrong. 

Have you forgotten the Hand Held mine detectors already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Shroud said:

What are they going to do with 34 pieces? 

 

Buy at least +100 for it to even look like it's for national security...

They will look nice in Bangkok  for ceremonal reasons, especially when newly painted.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, oldsailor35 said:

This is criminal, why is so much money being spent on the military when the public hospitals are in such a run down and sorry state.

Agreed it is criminal but nowhere near as much as the UK spending £31 Billion plus to replace its nuclear deterrent. 

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...