Covert1:


A great job u do trying to make him understand. Hope he does cos so far all I see is a guy who "sees no bad in us". Everything is on the up and up for him in SA Lol. Btw their subs don't even have the AIP speaking of.

Tactically Speaking:

We can write from now to tmrw, fact is Nuclear subs are of greater advantage, period. Modern Nuke subs are basically built to be a hole in the water. It's reactor machinery noise is isolated. It is silent. It is nigh impossible to detect (some have said can't be detected). Their positions in a global ocean is an unknown. It's one weakness being very fast, is the heat it leaves on the surface while diving to depth and that mostly is negated by the hydrodynamics of the Sea. This same jin115 won't let us hear word if they get one - in a dream.

Diesel Electric Subs are great and deadly but it's touted stealthiness is remaining still at depth in contested waters. That's a fact. For the sake of saying they are great, the Gotland class is better. In fact the swedes are building subs that can survive torpedo hits but questionably yet in service. Still at that how many hits can it survive? It is limited in range by a whole host of factors not least it's need to breath. In a concentrated ADMI with Air-borne, Satellite, Ship, Submarine search and track sensors it is toast.

Submarines above all else hate search from up there, it almost always gives it away. T'is why range and survivability (need to stay submerged) matters so ur position is hardly compromised. The Heroine Class subs don't have that capability.

Nigeria is still in business.

Lol.

Was trying to make sure we look from same angle.

Covert1:


......................You have to look behind the words to understand the meaning.

OMG!!!! This guy!!

There's nothing to look behind!!! I said d.e are quieter..they are!!

I said our subs were bought for defensive purposes...they are!! So I don't know why you are debating this point when I agree with you.

I said no regional force operates nuclear subs.....they don't!


Lastly what if I told you d.e subs are the future?? And superpowers are considering replacing there nuclear subs with d.e subs?? Also what if I told you that a d.e sub sunk a sh1t load of nuclear subs during an exercise??

neighy:
datx wat i was saying in d oda Thread... It will do u no good if you are strong but have weak neigbhours... We'v been busy over the years Peace Keeping here and there we still have about 2battalions of soldiers in Liberia... Those we favoured are turning out to be ingrates look at Ghana trying to turn the Instability of Nigeria into an oppourtunity unluckily they ended up broke... ... ...
I'l look at it again and say some of this countries dont worth it...but we've got a more powerful force we've ghas Stand Against.... If some of this countries stil dosnt know who their real allies are OR if we dont have a UNIFIED AFRICA... THEN WE TALKING ABOUT GREAT DAMAGE HERE...

Our troops r der because of our defense pact with dem n Sierra Leone.
If u go to any con3 on ur own to quel somthing without d support of UN monetarily u r on ur own & Nigeria did this in two con3s before UN came on board

jln115:


Dude how could someone who thinks Ship based radars would detect the periscope and snorkel of a sub in the ocean, teach me anything about submarines??

This is the same "military researcher" who said 40-50 Km range artillery was redundant because "how can they see that far?"

fufubear:
Perhaps Nigeria is pushing to standardize mbt as a t72/t90? Would make sense imo. Then the Vickers could be converted to IFV (think along the lines of the terminator) or other support vehicles like recovery vehicles, bridgelayers, or Afghanskii style AA guns/IFV. That what I can think of ground vehicle wise.

LTGEN:
http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/241405-nigeria-considers-buying-fighter-planes-artillery-others-russia.html
Premium Times to a certain extent are known for their accuracy
I believe this is a topic worth discussing i would like to hear from anyone what type of Artillery systems and Armoured Vehicles could that also mean Tanks? and MRAPS what kind of MRAPS ? Please intelligent discussions only no political discussion on GEJ vs PMB, This might be the first MAJOR PROCUREMENT for the N.A.
Thank you in advance NO DERAILMENT.

Baba let everyone discuss here

The Pantsir is now officially and fully combat proven. At least 12 confirmed kills in Syria during the first six months of 2017 . These intercepted targets were American , Turkish and Israeli drones , as well as rockets, aerostats and mini-UAVs

Algerian1:
The Pantsir is now officially and fully combat proven. At least 12 confirmed kills in Syria during the first six months of 2017 . These intercepted targets were American , Turkish and Israeli drones , as well as rockets, aerostats and mini-UAVs

The ruskies want no snooping around

ssaengine:


I know how to spell best. I would have simply said "they're the best police unit in the world".....and I was very careful to always use the word training. Number of those who apply, compared to those who qualify....maybe someone can show me other police units that have similar drop out rates. But ya, nuff said.

Since you are "careful to always use the word training" that must mean you know of the training regimen of ;

EKO Cobra
GSG-9
GIGN
Hong Kong Police SDU
Italian GIS
Hell even Trish ERU

Odunayaw:


Since you are "careful to always use the word training" that must mean you know of the training regimen of ;

EKO Cobra
GSG-9
GIGN
Hong Kong Police SDU
Italian GIS
Hell even Trish ERU

I think I'll answer on his behalf, i just want to clarify that I'm not claiming that the STF has the best training, but compared to the above(i have done my research) the STF has the longest, most intense training regime which includes a wider range of skills that have to be mastered to become a qualified operator.......hence the pass rate is around 2% compared to 20-25% for other units .

jln115:

I think I'll answer on his behalf, i just want to clarify that I'm not claiming that the STF has the best training, but compared to the above(i have done my research) the STF has the longest, most intense training regime which includes a wider range of skills that have to be mastered to become a qualified operator.......hence the pass rate is around 2% compared to 20-25% for other units .

Your point if I understand correctly is the average STF operator is trained longer than the others.

My point has been other special units could have this same standard of training or better put, they are not starved of opportunities to train as much as the STF

Anyway thanks I got to know a bit more on the STF

Odunayaw:
Your point if I understand correctly is the average STF operator is trained longer than the others.

My point has been other special units could have this same standard of training or better put,they are not starved of opportunities to train as much as the STF

Anyway thanks I got to know a bit more on the STF

As I said I did a bit of digging, the STF do have one of the longest(If not thee longest) the longest training regime of any police unit, as for the bolded...the STF sees more action in a month than most units see in a year, as you know violent crime is a huge problem in SA!! So ill even go to say they are more experienced than most police units in the world!!

Covert1:


History tells us differently. Your idea proved impossible in wartime Germany. Countries with more depth in population and human creativity mixed with material resources even if at time of hostilities marginal in industrial output wins the day as can they quickly muster armament production on a large scale. i.e America vs Japan in the second world and entrance of America into WW11 completely tilted the war in the favor of the allies. Despite all the wonder weapons thrown into the fray the Red Army prevailed against the German Wehrmacht and the SS of Hitlers Third Reich.

Germany fought the entire world not just one country and if they didn't invade the Soviet Union they would most likely have conquered Europe.....They literally took on the entire world and almost won thanks to thier superior Defence industry and their much more advanced weapons.

jln115:

Germany fought the entire world not just one country and if they didn't invade the Soviet Union they would most likely have conquered Europe.....They literally took on the entire world and almost won thanks to thier superior Defence industry and their much more advanced weapons.

Also, doctrine.

Germans had extremely advanced combined-arms doctrine.

The Brits never caught up, and the Americans only caught up towards the end of the war.

Soviet doctrine was terrible, but it worked for them - deep operations against an enemy who is not allowed to maneuver is absolutely lethal.

jln115:

Germany fought the entire world not just one country and if they didn't invade the Soviet Union they would most likely have conquered Europe.....They literally took on the entire world and almost won thanks to thier superior Defence industry and their much more advanced weapons.

There is no way South Africa should be above Nigeria. We have to take into account first the types of threats both Nations face and how they are structured to deal with the threats.

It is not enough to count Frigates and Fighter jets and immediately come to a conclusion that one is better than the other.

In the case of Algeria and Egypt, yes, they are significantly ahead. For Nigeria and South-Africa, that's not true.

Henry240:

There is no way South Africa should be above Nigeria. We have to take into account first the types of threats both Nations face and how they are structured to deal with the threats.

It is not enough to count Frigates and Fighter jets and immediately come to a conclusion that one is better than the other.

In the case of Algeria and Egypt, yes, they are significantly ahead. For Nigeria and South-Africa, that's not true.

In what way in your OPINION is Nigeria above SA?

Try to keep it civil...if you can!

Patchesagain:


Also, doctrine.

Germans had extremely advanced combined-arms doctrine.

The Brits never caught up, and the Americans only caught up towards the end of the war.

Soviet doctrine was terrible, but it worked for them - deep operations against an enemy who is not allowed to maneuver is absolutely lethal.

Agreed but doctrine wasn't to relevant with regards to my replay to Covert1.....anyway seems to me Covert1 only likes to reply on the other thread where he can derail for all to see.......quick to shy away from an actual discussion, just proves his an out and out troll!

Henry240:

There is no way South Africa should be above Nigeria. We have to take into account first the types of threats both Nations face and how they are structured to deal with the threats.

It is not enough to count Frigates and Fighter jets and immediately come to a conclusion that one is better than the other.

In the case of Algeria and Egypt, yes, they are significantly ahead. For Nigeria and South-Africa, that's not true.

Nope.

South Africa is better equipped for ALL spectrums of warfare. Simple.

Furthermore, if it is threat dependant, then your entire ranking system if fvcked because Malawi has no threats, hence, their military is the best prepared!

jln115:

Germany fought the entire world not just one country and if they didn't invade the Soviet Union they would most likely have conquered Europe.....They literally took on the entire world and almost won thanks to thier superior Defence industry and their much more advanced weapons.

Nah they were successful because of perfect timing and gambling huge risks. Also France was woefully ill-prepared which shocked even the Germans.

Honestly the war could have lasted less than a year if only a couple things were to happen.

I get your argument though don't let my nitpicks convince you otherwise.

jln115:

In what way in your OPINION is Nigeria above SA?

Try to keep it civil...if you can!

I'll have loved to dissect this topic like the old times, however because of topic apathy, I'll leave it at that.

Henry240:

I'll have loved to dissect this topic like the old times, however because of topic apathy, I'll leave it at that.

No prob

fufubear:

Nah they were successful because of perfect timing and gambling huge risks. Also France was woefully ill-prepared which shocked even the Germans.

Honestly the war could have lasted less than a year if only a couple things were to happen.

I get your argument though don't let my nitpicks convince you otherwise.

Well my response was with regards to only one piece of the puzzle..... of course there were many other aspects why Germany lost( or could've won) but since that was not relevant to the debate I was having I didn't mention it.

jln115:

Agreed but doctrine wasn't to relevant with regards to my replay to Covert1.....anyway seems to me Covert1 only likes to reply on the other thread where he can derail for all to see.......quick to shy away from an actual discussion, just proves his an out and out troll!

Just look at you caught backbiting.

I don't have the time to respond to every contrary opinion which mostly are just soundbites to massage ego and national pride.

Patchesagain:


Nope.

South Africa is better equipped for ALL spectrums of warfare. Simple.

Furthermore, if it is threat dependant, then your entire ranking system if fvcked because Malawi has no threats, hence, their military is the best prepared!

Wrong except on paper and TV. The SA military has not been put to the test in modern times except for one significant peacekeeping mission in the Congo with mixed results and where they have had actual combat engagement they failed abysmally i.e Bangui in CAR—not the fault of the soldiers I must add (there are some competent elements within SA' military) but it's military leadership back home for poor planning and support a leadership dearth symptomatic of SA's military in the last decade.

The ranking does not reflect actual realities.

But I like that you dare to dream.

jln115:

Germany fought the entire world not just one country and if they didn't invade the Soviet Union they would most likely have conquered Europe.....They literally took on the entire world and almost won thanks to thier superior Defence industry and their much more advanced weapons.

That Germany fought same time on the Western and Eastern fronts was Hitlers strategic error and moreso because of his over-confidence in Germany's industrial revolution under Nazi rule. A misguided confidence that would come back to haunt him. A good thing.

Nazi Germany had the blitzkrieg doctrine in WW11 for which they had been quietly arming as Adolf Hitler had an axe to grind for the loss of WW1. In fact the Luftwaffe was so prepared in aircraft numbers and quality that they pulverized England in the early stages of the war.

That speed and take no prisoner approach in the early days of the war for which no one except Germany was adequately prepared led to the quick conquer and occupation of large states like Poland in the east and France to the west and indeed much of Europe except the island country Britain cut off from the continent by sea. In essence the Nazis and Fascist Italy did conquer and occupy Europe though with underground resistance from armed opposition local groups or clandestine forces smuggled in by allied intelligence to operate behind enemy lines.

Hitler had an obsession to conquer and capture Russia for not just it's natural resources which was one major goal but also distrust of what Stalin was up to and the morbid fear that Russia was just too large and endowed to ignore which could one day overrun Berlin and enslave it's people, a fear that persists till date under a different guise among major powers and which preceded the Nazis. Napoleons invasion of Russia is just one example among many. Yet above all else, the harsh winter conditions of Russia and the dexterity of it's people to fight against all odds always proved an asset against invading forces.

So while a lot of the disaster and failure that characterized the siege of Leningrad and eventual withdrawal of the Deutsche Wehrmacht from the doors of Moscow culminating ultimately in the defeat of Nazi Germany in Berlin rests with Hitler mostly because he wouldn't listen to the strategic and tactical withdrawal or offensive plans of his proven Generals but insist on the fight and die order in hopeless situations by German troops reason because of his implicit faith in the wonder weapons either delivered or soon to be delivered from Germany's industrial heartland to change the tide of the war all of which though had a huge impact in dragging out the war for so long did not change the over-all dynamic of the war which was victory for the allies in the west and victory for the Russians on the eastern front thanks more to the climate and topography of the region as well as the depth and human-resource size of the defending forces. Remember these countries were on the back foot at the beginning of the war but won at the end.

So a large creative human and mineral resource country without an adequate defence industry still potentially could muster all the elements of it's national power to overcome a serious existential threat to it's nationhood. That's what America did in WW11 against imperial Japan and won.

Though lessons learned tells us it is cheaper to prepare for war to prevent the event of war especially preparedness for contemporary threats it still does not negate the advantage of depth and large creative human and material resources.

Covert1:


Wrong except on paper and TV. The SA military has not been put to the test in modern times except for one significant peacekeeping mission in the Congo with mixed results and where they have had actual combat engagement they failed abysmally i.e Bangui in CAR—not the fault of the soldiers I must add (there are some competent elements within SA' military) but it's military leadership back home for poor planning and support a leadership dearth symptomatic of SA's military in the last decade.

The ranking does not reflect actual realities.

But I like that you dare to dream.

1. It has been put to the test - Angola. Men who fought in that war are still serving in the SANDF. The conflict in Angola remains Africas biggest and most advanced ever fought in Africa - one of the few with regular combined arms operations, the employment of advanced air-defense networks, multi-squadron air-raids, air-to-air combat, SF deployments via submarine and brigade sized combat etc etc etc
2. The deployment in DRC congo has seen the extensive combat, with excellent results: M23 was comprehensively defeated. M23 was better equipped and led than Boko and yet, they are gone and boko is not.
3. Combat in Bangui was a tactical success with the mission meeting its objectives - and a victory on the battlefield. A testament to how good the SANDF is. Can you show me an instance of 200 of your men holding off 4000 enemy for 30+ hours, inflicting heavy casualties and still meeting mission objectives? Nope.

The simple fact of the matter is that the SANDF is better equipped, better trained and has a cohesive and effective military doctrine. The same things cannot be said about your home nation - for goodness sakes, your men in the N.E are moved around the battlefield in dump-trucks!

"b..but muh combat experience"
Saddams military had extensive combat experience, and got wiped by the comparatively "green" NATO alliance. Why? NATO was better equipped and trained and had the superior doctrine.

The fact that you even care about this topic says all that needs to be said.

Covert1:


Well been watching them here shying away from the issue. God forbid islamafascists jihadists decide to make SA their next port of call for terror the size we've seen in north-east Nigeria and the Lake Chad region cos they will quickly overrun the place. SA does not have and have not built the kind of CT/COIN capacity needed to deal with threats of that nature and magnitude. CT/COIN capability and capacity takes months and years to develop.

However SA Muslims though insignificant in numbers have not shown the strain of Jihadi Wahhabism that is the source of all terrorism.

You seem to forget that SA basically wrote the book on modern day counter terrorism doctrine .... We are literally world leaders in the field.

Hence Nigeria(and countries around the world) come to South Africa for ct/coin training and mercenaries

Covert1:


That Germany fought same time on the Western and Eastern fronts was Hitlers strategic error and moreso because of his over-confidence in Germany's industrial revolution under Nazi rule. A misguided confidence that would come back to haunt him. A good thing.

Nazi Germany had the blitzkrieg doctrine in WW11 for which they had been quietly arming as Adolf Hitler had an axe to grind for the loss of WW1. In fact the Luftwaffe was so prepared in aircraft numbers and quality that they pulverized England in the early stages of the war.

That speed and take no prisoner approach in the early days of the war for which no one except Germany was adequately prepared led to the quick conquer and occupation of large states like Poland in the east and France to the west and indeed much of Europe except the island country Britain cut off from the continent by sea. In essence the Nazis and Fascist Italy did conquer and occupy Europe though with underground resistance from armed opposition local groups or clandestine forces smuggled in by allied intelligence to operate behind enemy lines.

Hitler had an obsession to conquer and capture Russia for not just it's natural resources which was one major goal but also distrust of what Stalin was up to and the morbid fear that Russia was just too large and endowed to ignore which could one day overrun Berlin and enslave it's people, a fear that persists till date under a different guise among major powers and which preceded the Nazis. Napoleons invasion of Russia is just one example among many. Yet above all else, the harsh winter conditions of Russia and the dexterity of it's people to fight against all odds always proved an asset against invading forces.

So while a lot of the disaster and failure that characterized the siege of Leningrad and eventual withdrawal of the Deutsche Wehrmacht from the doors of Moscow culminating ultimately in the defeat of Nazi Germany in Berlin rests with Hitler mostly because he wouldn't listen to the strategic and tactical withdrawal or offensive plans of his proven Generals but insist on the fight and die order in hopeless situations by German troops reason because of his implicit faith in the wonder weapons either delivered or soon to be delivered from Germany's industrial heartland to change the tide of the war all of which though had a huge impact in dragging out the war for so long did not change the over-all dynamic of the war which was victory for the allies in the west and victory for the Russians on the eastern front thanks more to the climate and topography of the region as well as the depth and human-resource size of the defending forces. Remember these countries were on the back foot at the beginning of the war but won at the end.

So a large creative human and mineral resource country without an adequate defence industry still potentially could muster all the elements of it's national power to overcome a serious existential threat to it's nationhood. That's what America did in WW11 against imperial Japan and won.

Though lessons learned tells us it is cheaper to prepare for war to prevent the event of war especially preparedness for contemporary threats it still does not negate the advantage of depth and large creative human and material resources.

Such a long post just to agree that Germany would've won if they had not invaded the soviet Union.

Also the soviet Union had a huge defence industry... Might not have been as advanced as Germany defence industry but it was certainly adequate.

Patchesagain:


1. It has been put to the test - Angola. Men who fought in that war are still serving in the SANDF. The conflict in Angola remains Africas biggest and most advanced ever fought in Africa - one of the few with regular combined arms operations, the employment of advanced air-defense networks, multi-squadron air-raids, air-to-air combat, SF deployments via submarine and brigade sized combat etc etc etc
2. The deployment in DRC congo has seen the extensive combat, with excellent results: M23 was comprehensively defeated. M23 was better equipped and led than Boko and yet, they are gone and boko is not.
3. Combat in Bangui was a tactical success with the mission meeting its objectives - and a victory on the battlefield. A testament to how good the SANDF is. Can you show me an instance of 200 of your men holding off 4000 enemy for 30+ hours, inflicting heavy casualties and still meeting mission objectives? Nope.

The simple fact of the matter is that the SANDF is better equipped, better trained and has a cohesive and effective military doctrine. The same things cannot be said about your home nation - for goodness sakes, your men in the N.E are moved around the battlefield in dump-trucks!

"b..but muh combat experience"
Saddams military had extensive combat experience, and got wiped by the comparatively "green" NATO alliance. Why? NATO was better equipped and trained and had the superior doctrine.

The fact that you even care about this topic says all that needs to be said.

Like I said you like to dream. Nothing stops you from deluding yourself on the pages of nairaland with hyperbolic concoctions.

You can't re-write history. Here is what happened: South Africa was defeated in Angola, got beaten blue-black in Bangui and fled to the airport under French protection and whilst their were some units operating with UN forces in offensive operations in the DRC the South African peacekeepers were generally under the protection of a Tanzanian force.

Comparing Saddam's Iraqi Army to NATO is insanity in broad day light. Check yourself pls.

About M23 and boko haram, it is laughable but insulting your characterization. The MEND the Nigerian Army dealt with in the Niger-Delta was even more deadly than M23. MEND and M23 combined comes nothing close to boko haram that operates based on an ideology to die for God. When rebels in the DRC start strapping 6 year old girls with bombs and attacking UN positions on a suicidal mission something non-existent in your DRC peacekeeping mission then you can come and talk to me.

The SANDF today has nothing on the present capacity and capabilities of Nigeria's Armed Forces. As we speak we have all of your territory covered and already know the windows of every one of your leadership and strategic assets to hit with precision strikes if the need arises to deploy.

But I must add I have no appetite for kid talk.

jln115:

You seem to forget that SA basically wrote the book on modern day counter terrorism doctrine .... We are literally world leaders in the field.

Hence Nigeria(and countries around the world) come to South Africa for ct/coin training and mercenaries

In your dreams. I know in your dreams.

Covert1:


In your dreams. I know in your dreams.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/14/south-africas-ageing-white-mercenaries-who-helped-turn-tide-on-boko-haram

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeria/11596210/South-African-mercenaries-secret-war-on-Boko-Haram.html

Nigeria even wanted our SFs to fight Boko Harm:

https://www.nation.co.ke/news/africa/Nigeria-to-deploy-SA-special-forces-to-fight-Boko-Haram/1066-3108080-13uukfaz/index.html

https://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/sa-to-join-fight-against-boko-haram-1995592

jln115:

Such a long post just to agree that Germany would've won if they had not invaded the soviet Union.

Also the soviet Union had a huge defence industry... Might not have been as advanced as Germany defence industry but it was certainly adequate.

You see why I don't come here cos instead of informed debate we have soundbites running amok. Certainly you didn't understand.

The point is the Fuehrer Adolf Hitler had original designs on Russia not the West. He responded to the West because they stood against his expansionist ambition in Europe.

And no Russia had no adequate defense industry at the start of Operation Barbarossa. In fact it was the allies that were supplying Russia weapons and equipment though little because of the logistics involved for delivery to hold the defensive lines in Moscow. Besides Stalin is on record at the time to have believed all the assurances of Hitler that he won't attack Russia hence was surprised at the scale of the invasion and was ill prepared. That's the history. Go and read so I don't waste valuable time.

Russia won the war majorly because of the factors I've given. Military historians concur.

jln115:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/14/south-africas-ageing-white-mercenaries-who-helped-turn-tide-on-boko-haram

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeria/11596210/South-African-mercenaries-secret-war-on-Boko-Haram.html

Nigeria even wanted our SFs to fight Boko Harm:

https://www.nation.co.ke/news/africa/Nigeria-to-deploy-SA-special-forces-to-fight-Boko-Haram/1066-3108080-13uukfaz/index.html

https://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/sa-to-join-fight-against-boko-haram-1995592

Fake News.