After Repelling the Attack in Buni Yadi.

Where do ISWAP drive to?

Is it possible for a proper coordination between Fighter pilots and Soldiers to ensure 80% of ISWAP foot men meet their Waterloo?

Questions

bidexiii:
#Northeast
#NA
#CION

Nothing to be excited about from my perspective.

If I have a RWS FLIR and the obligatory target acquisition software. What it means is that even at 1000 metres you have near 95% accuracy. That means you can effectively take out sorry disintegrate and barbecue 5/6 technical within a few minutes. You will not be REPELLING but chasing down and DESTROYING.

What do you think is the level of accuracy of someone using steel sites at 1000 metre with a HMG mounted on on on our vehicles, at very best 50% of rounds will hit the target in reality about 25% with a moving target maybe 10%.

What that means is that if you have 20 Boko technicals engaging with you will end up REPELLING them not necessarily ANNIHILATING DESTROYING & ROASTING them. So they will live to fight another day.

That means if you have RWS mounted on your armoured vehicles, you can effectively take out sorry disintegrate and barbecue 5 technicals within a few minutes. You will not be REPELLING but chasing down and DESTROYING.

Furthermore, I would have on my RWS for our armoured vehicles grenade launcher 40mm like the USA Mk-19 or the Ukrainian KBA-117 which we had on the few BTR-4 we had but they have been badly maintained. It's a much more effective weapon in the sahel Savannah with all the shrubs and high grass where your enemy may seek to hide and carry out ambushes.

For someone who hang out with soldiers almost everyday, you sure love coming here asking laymen about things most would have no answers to lol, why not ask those military guys you share drinks with, then come tell us

SamuelAnyawu:
After Repelling the Attack in Buni Yadi.

Where do ISWAP drive to?

Is it possible for a proper coordination between Fighter pilots and Soldiers to ensure 80% of ISWAP foot men never meet their Waterloo?

Questions

komekn:


Nothing to be excited about from my perspective.

If I have a RWS FLIR and the obligatory target acquisition software. What it means is that even at 1000 metres you have near 95% accuracy. That means you can effectively take out sorry disintegrate and barbecue 5/6 technical within a few minutes. You will not be REPELLING but chasing down and DESTROYING.

What do you think is the level of accuracy of someone using steel sites at 1000 metre with a HMG mounted on on on our vehicles, at very best 50% of rounds will hit the target in reality about 25% with a moving target maybe 10%.

What that means is that if you have 20 Boko technicals engaging with you will end up REPELLING them not necessarily ANNIHILATING DESTROYING & ROASTING them. So they will live to fight another day.

That means if you have RWS mounted on your armoured vehicles, you can effectively take out sorry disintegrate and barbecue 5 technicals within a few minutes. You will not be REPELLING but chasing down and DESTROYING.

Furthermore, I would have on my RWS for our armoured vehicles grenade launcher 40mm like the USA Mk-19 or the Ukrainian KBA-117 which we had on the few BTR-4 we had but they have been badly maintained. It's a much more effective weapon in the sahel Savannah with all the shrubs and high grass where your enemy may seek to hide and carry out ambushes.

imagine atleast 50 percent of our dongfengs, armed with the norinco 40mm RWS, baptism of fire from above and below this will make much more virgins in Paradise pleased.. I too am getting tired of seeing hmg versus hmg action

SamuelAnyawu:
After Repelling the Attack in Buni Yadi.

Where do ISWAP drive to?

Is it possible for a proper coordination between Fighter pilots and Soldiers to ensure 80% of ISWAP foot men never meet their Waterloo?

Questions

The airforce has done this a number of times in the past, using drones to trail terrorists back to their bases and destroying the bases especially when they've captured certain weapons the military isn't convenient with leaving to the terrorists. What are the limitations to this?
1) we don't have enough UAVs to spare every time terrorists attacks
2) The ammunitions used by the UAVs are just too expensive to use on not too important targets. Why waste missiles worth millions of dollars on a few their and their guntrucks when dumb bombs and rockets will do the same during air-interdiction?
3) if any other type of aircrafts is used to trail them and it is detected, the terrorist's convoy will simply split and move in different directions, the aircraft will have to decide on which to follow which might end up not being important.
4) majority of the aircrafts in the NAF's inventory can't stay in the air for more than an hour before having to return to base to refuel, the terrorist can conviniently out-wait the airforce. Only the Tucanos have longer flight time and most of it would have been expended in the actual battle.
5) If the army tries this, it might work out a few times before the terrorists start committing additional men and resources to protect their escape routes, they will employ IEDs and also ambush any troops that attempts to chase them.
Alternatively, they will employ this as a strategy to capture military bases, they will give the troops in any base of target a bait that the military will need to employ some of its best weapons to chase in an attempt to effectively destroy, once the party giving chase has been effectively lured away from the base, the main attacking force of the terrorists moves in to capture the weakened base. Classic divide and conquer.

Main gist is that you must never be predictable in war, when it is convenient for you and you are pretty confident of your strength, you may give chase, otherwise you in your base and be contented with what you've accomplished.
Besides, it is expected that the terrorists will protect their escape route whenever they attack. No reasonable fighting force should attack an enemy without having a secured route through which they can retreat.


Why do you have to chase though when you can take out majority of them in the actual battle by investing in reasonable weapons. Anti-material riffles, automatic grenade launchers, AFVs/tanks etc should take out most of the technicals at reasonable distances and at low cost.

willybaby:
imagine atleast 50 percent of our dongfengs, armed with the norinco 40mm RWS, baptism of fire from above and below this will make much more virgins in Paradise pleased.. I too am getting tired of seeing hmg versus hmg action

Money is the problem, the army isn't new to RCWS, the VT4 and ST1 have RCWS. The cost of equipping a dongfeng with RCWS is enough to buy another dongfeng. For an army still moving around and fighting in hilux guntrucks, it will be a misplaced priority to go RCWS when most of your troops are still moving around in soft skins. Some RCWS in the market will pay for 2-3 light armored vehicles.

Whyem15:



The airforce has done this a number of times in the past, using drones to trail terrorists back to their bases and destroying the bases especially when they've captured certain weapons the military isn't convenient with leaving to the terrorists. What are the limitations to this?
1) we don't have enough UAVs to spare every time terrorists attacks
2) The ammunitions used by the UAVs are just too expensive to use on not too important targets. Why waste missiles worth millions of dollars on a few their and their guntrucks when dumb bombs and rockets will do the same during air-interdiction?
3) if any other type of aircrafts is used to trail them and it is detected, the terrorist's convoy will simply split and move in different directions, the aircraft will have to decide on which to follow which might end up not being important.
4) majority of the aircrafts in the NAF's inventory can't stay in the air for more than an hour before having to return to base to refuel, the terrorist can conviniently out-wait the airforce. Only the Tucanos have longer flight time and most of it would have been expended in the actual battle.
5) If the army tries this, it might work out a few times before the terrorists start committing additional men and resources to protect their escape routes, they will employ IEDs and also ambush any troops that attempts to chase them.
Alternatively, they will employ this as a strategy to capture military bases, they will give the troops in any base of target a bait that the military will need to employ some of its best weapons to chase in an attempt to effectively destroy, once the party giving chase has been effectively lured away from the base, the main attacking force of the terrorists moves in to capture the weakened base. Classic divide and conquer.

Main gist is that you must never be predictable in war, when it is convenient for you and you are pretty confident of your strength, you may give chase, otherwise you in your base and be contented with what you've accomplished.
Besides, it is expected that the terrorists will protect their escape route whenever they attack. No reasonable fighting force should attack an enemy without having a secured route through which they can retreat.


Why do you have to chase though when you can take out majority of them in the actual battle by investing in reasonable weapons. Anti-material riffles, automatic grenade launchers, AFVs/tanks etc should take out most of the technicals at reasonable distances and at low cost.

Woooow kudos Brother for this

Saw this on twitter-land

Whyem15:


Money is the problem, the army isn't new to RCWS, the VT4 and ST1 have RCWS. The cost of equipping a dongfeng with RCWS is enough to buy another dongfeng. For an army still moving around and fighting in hilux guntrucks, it will be a misplaced priority to go RCWS when most of your troops are still moving around in soft skins some RCWS in the market will pay for 2-3 light armored vehicles.

If you have a fire � in your house, you don't carry water with a pale to end that fire. You get a high pressure water hose attached to fire truck and in a few minutes fire is over and totally out. With other option your House will be burned to ashes.

This war will not be won with air power it's a attrition warfare with a very elusive enemy. I hope you know it's possible to hide from aircraft. Much more so the turbo props A29 that give you enough warning with their loud engines to hide in the shrubs and long grass of the sahel Savannah. They Boko technicals just have to keep hidden for a few hours and it's over. I don't think the A29 will consider flying low to become targets for multiple AA gunfire.

Until you are prepared to commit autonomous search and destroy missions with the right armoured vehicles and precision weaponry we will be in stalemate.

When we do procurement we buy in units of 10,20 30 maybe ,60. It's abysmal, not good enough. That's why we are overstretched.

Our procurement should be in multiples of 1000 that makes an immediate and overwhelming impact on the battlefield management and strategy , you then ANNIHILATE your enemy.

What we are doing is like never taking the full course / dosage of malaria drug's to destroy the malaria in our system. So the malaria never goes away and it then develops resistance and become a bigger problem spreading to other parts of the body ( nation)

Until we have a better strategy with regards to procurement this situation will NEVER END. I did ask once for us to make suggestions what we would have done with the ,$600 million wasted on A29. Many hailed it as the one stop solution to end Boko.

Finally, I want you to consider your proposition in the bold. And I will turn it upside down and pribay leave feeling BEWILDERED in unbelief.


I can procure 3 used, fit for purpose MRAP type armoured vehicles for the cost of one brand new Toyota 70 series pick which retail in excess of $55K if you add modifications then much more. The vehicles I am talking about are much more resilient, have huge survivability and ten times the lifespan of a Toyota series 70 soft skinned pick up truck in the battlefield. Some have less than 5000 km so very close to being brand new.

I want to believe that our highly trained senior officer know this but I'm not entirely sure Because incompetence is rife in all our government divisions.

So money is ABSOLUTELY not the problem but a lack of knowledge, ingenuity and quest for best value and use of resources for greatest efficacy. On the other hand we could also say, the quest for personal interest over rides national interest, graft.

bidexiii:
Saw this on twitter-land

Very little is heard about their use on the front line.

komekn:


If you have a fire � in your house, you don't carry water with a pale to end that fire. You get a high pressure water hose attached to fire truck and in a few minutes fire is over and totally out. With other option your House will be burned to ashes.

This war will not be won with air power it's a attrition warfare with a very elusive enemy. I hope you know it's possible to hide from aircraft. Much more so the turbo props A29 that give you enough warning with their loud engines to hide in the shrubs and long grass of the sahel Savannah. They Boko technicals just have to keep hidden for a few hours and it's over. I don't think the A29 will consider flying low to become targets for multiple AA gunfire.

Until you are prepared to commit autonomous search and destroy missions with the right armoured vehicles and precision weaponry we will be in stalemate.

When we do procurement we buy in units of 10,20 30 maybe ,60. It's abysmal, not good enough. That's why we are overstretched.

Our procurement should be in multiples of 1000 that makes an immediate and overwhelming impact on the battlefield management and strategy , you then ANNIHILATE your enemy.

What we are doing is like never taking the full course / dosage of malaria drug's to destroy the malaria in our system. So the malaria never goes away and it then develops resistance and become a bigger problem spreading to other parts of the body ( nation)

Until we have a better strategy with regards to procurement this situation will NEVER END. I did ask once for us to make suggestions what we would have done with the ,$600 million wasted on A29. Many hailed it as the one stop solution to end Boko.

Finally, I want you to consider your proposition in the bold. And I will turn it upside down and pribay leave feeling BEWILDERED in unbelief.


I can procure 3 used, fit for purpose MRAP type armoured vehicles for the cost of one brand new Toyota 70 series pick which retail in excess of $55K if you add modifications then much more. The vehicles I am talking about are much more resilient, have huge survivability and ten times the lifespan of a Toyota series 70 soft skinned pick up truck in the battlefield. Some have less than 5000 km so very close to being brand new.

I want to believe that our highly trained senior officer know this but I'm not entirely sure Because incompetence is rife in all our government divisions.

So money is ABSOLUTELY not the problem but a lack of knowledge, ingenuity and quest for best value and use of resources for greatest efficacy. On the other hand we could also say, the quest for personal interest over rides national interest, graft.

And if you don't have the money for the high pressure hose because all your money has to go into your feed and clothing, you would kill yourself?
I'm not against the use of RCWS but there is something called scale of preference when faced with limited resources. For now, the opportunity cost of protected mobility is much more than that of RCWS. After the military has satisfied the need for protected mobility to a reasonable level, it will cost less than $50 million to upgrade all military vehicles and equip them with RCWS. For now, decreasing life threatening risks and increasing survivability of as much troops as possible is of utmost importance.

I'm also not in support of using soft skin vehicles to transport troops in the frontline, however, I wonder how such used armored vehicles are still available in the market if they are as cost efficient as you make them seem. I wonder why other militaries haven't grabbed them from the market and why the country that originally used them abandoned them in the first instance. If they are indeed cost efficient and would not become a maintenance nightmare in a few years time, no problem, I'm in support of purchasing such but then, repairing and restoring the over 600 AFVs in the army's inventory most of which are just in need of new engines will be a wiser course of action.
You should also know that the army isn't new to purchasing used military equipments. The T-72s, BMPs and BTRs were mostly gotten this way. They are also not strangers to purchasing equipments from original manufacturers with spares and maintenance and training of personnels on proper utilization of the equipments included. The military has experience in both and knows the side that benefits it the most. You should also note that the military's procurement isn't dictated by the insurgency alone but also future needs, they are not buying equipments that won't be relevant or useful a few years from now due to paucity of funds.

You really think if the money is made available, they won't purchase in thousands equipments that they need and want? Each arm of the military goes cap in hand to the National assembly to beg for more funds every year and they still don't get the barest minimum that they need not to even talk about wants.
As for the Tucanos, the airforce wanted a platform that can stay on the battlefield for as long as possible before needing to return to base, a platform that is cheap to operate and makes use of very cheap ammunitions to take out the enemy and they got it. If you know of any armed UAV that has all these 3, suggest it and let's talk about it. The airforce just doesn't have the money to kill a few terrorists in a guntruck with missiles costing several hundred thousands of dollars to as much as millions when there are other ammunitions that can do the same cheaply.

Procurement in the Nigerian military is guided by needs, what is available in the market, what is realistically achievable for them and what is best. The army recently bought over 300 armored vehicles from different manufacturers, they could have gotten from just one manufacturer but they needed different classes(tracked/wheel, weight and sub components), and they wanted it within a time frame which one manufacturer wouldn't be able to realistically meet

Whyem15:



And if you don't have the money for the high pressure hose because all your money has to go into your feed and clothing, you would kill yourself?
I'm not against the use of RCWS but there is something called scale of preference when faced with limited resources. For now, the opportunity cost of protected mobility is much more than that of RCWS. After the military has satisfied the need for protected mobility to a reasonable level, it will cost less than $50 million to upgrade all military vehicles and equip them with RCWS. For now, decreasing life threatening risks and increasing survivability of as much troops as possible is of utmost importance.

I'm also not in support of using soft skin vehicles to transport troops in the frontline, however, I wonder how such used armored vehicles are still available in the market if they are as cost efficient as you make them seem. I wonder why other militaries haven't grabbed them from the market and why the country that originally used them abandoned them in the first instance. If they are indeed cost efficient and would not become a maintenance nightmare in a few years time, no problem, I'm in support of purchasing such but then, repairing and restoring the over 600 AFVs in the army's inventory most of which are just in need of new engines will be a wiser course of action.
You should also know that the army isn't new to purchasing used military equipments. The T-72s, BMPs and BTRs were mostly gotten this way. They are also not strangers to purchasing equipments from original manufacturers with spares and maintenance and training of personnels on proper utilization of the equipments included. The military has experience in both and knows the side that benefits it the most. You should also note that the military's procurement isn't dictated by the insurgency alone but also future needs, they are not buying equipments that won't be relevant or useful a few years from now due to paucity of funds.

You really think if the money is made available, they won't purchase in thousands equipments that they need and want? Each arm of the military goes cap in hand to the National assembly to beg for more funds every year and they still don't get the barest minimum that they need not to even talk about wants.
As for the Tucanos, the airforce wanted a platform that can stay on the battlefield for as long as possible before needing to return to base, a platform that is cheap to operate and makes use of very cheap ammunitions to take out the enemy and they got it. If you know of any armed UAV that has all these 3, suggest it and let's talk about it. The airforce just doesn't have the money to kill a few terrorists in a guntruck with missiles costing several hundred thousands of dollars to as much as millions when there are other ammunitions that can do the same cheaply.

Procurement in the Nigerian military is guided by needs, what is available in the market, what is realistically achievable for them and what is best. The army recently bought over 300 armored vehicles from different manufacturers, they could have gotten from just one manufacturer but they needed different classes(tracked/wheel, weight and sub components), and they wanted it within a time frame which one manufacturer wouldn't be able to realistically meet

I gave YOU SPECIFIC COMPARISON alternative that costs less and COMPREHENSIVELY better EFFICACY and you did not even appraise the validity of my proposition or even make reference to it.

My proposition was quantifiable in relation to cost ,your entire long write up is unrelated. You neither address the subject or question the proposition.

Whyem15:


Money is the problem, the army isn't new to RCWS, the VT4 and ST1 have RCWS. The cost of equipping a dongfeng with RCWS is enough to buy another dongfeng. For an army still moving around and fighting in hilux guntrucks, it will be a misplaced priority to go RCWS when most of your troops are still moving around in soft skins. Some RCWS in the market will pay for 2-3 light armored vehicles.

Wow thanks for the insight, I never knew RCWs were that expensive I pray proforce and Co comes to our rescue soon, locally made should be cheaper

Whyem15:



And if you don't have the money for the high pressure hose because all your money has to go into your feed and clothing, you would kill yourself?
I'm not against the use of RCWS but there is something called scale of preference when faced with limited resources. For now, the opportunity cost of protected mobility is much more than that of RCWS. After the military has satisfied the need for protected mobility to a reasonable level, it will cost less than $50 million to upgrade all military vehicles and equip them with RCWS. For now, decreasing life threatening risks and increasing survivability of as much troops as possible is of utmost importance.

I'm also not in support of using soft skin vehicles to transport troops in the frontline, however, I wonder how such used armored vehicles are still available in the market if they are as cost efficient as you make them seem. I wonder why other militaries haven't grabbed them from the market and why the country that originally used them abandoned them in the first instance. If they are indeed cost efficient and would not become a maintenance nightmare in a few years time, no problem, I'm in support of purchasing such but then, repairing and restoring the over 600 AFVs in the army's inventory most of which are just in need of new engines will be a wiser course of action.
You should also know that the army isn't new to purchasing used military equipments. The T-72s, BMPs and BTRs were mostly gotten this way. They are also not strangers to purchasing equipments from original manufacturers with spares and maintenance and training of personnels on proper utilization of the equipments included. The military has experience in both and knows the side that benefits it the most. You should also note that the military's procurement isn't dictated by the insurgency alone but also future needs, they are not buying equipments that won't be relevant or useful a few years from now due to paucity of funds.

You really think if the money is made available, they won't purchase in thousands equipments that they need and want? Each arm of the military goes cap in hand to the National assembly to beg for more funds every year and they still don't get the barest minimum that they need not to even talk about wants.
As for the Tucanos, the airforce wanted a platform that can stay on the battlefield for as long as possible before needing to return to base, a platform that is cheap to operate and makes use of very cheap ammunitions to take out the enemy and they got it. If you know of any armed UAV that has all these 3, suggest it and let's talk about it. The airforce just doesn't have the money to kill a few terrorists in a guntruck with missiles costing several hundred thousands of dollars to as much as millions when there are other ammunitions that can do the same cheaply.

Procurement in the Nigerian military is guided by needs, what is available in the market, what is realistically achievable for them and what is best. The army recently bought over 300 armored vehicles from different manufacturers, they could have gotten from just one manufacturer but they needed different classes(tracked/wheel, weight and sub components), and they wanted it within a time frame which one manufacturer wouldn't be able to realistically meet

I must say, am with you on this one, yes the military is corrupt, yes the military leadership might have made mistakes and acted in ways we outsiders interpreted as incompetent but one fact remains the military knows better than everyone of us, building for now and later I feel takes balancing as whyem15 has rightly Said

willybaby:
I must say, am with you on this one, yes the military is corrupt, yes the military leadership might have made mistakes and acted in ways we outsiders interpreted as incompetent but one fact remains the military knows better than everyone of us, building for now and later I feel takes balancing as whyem15 has rightly Said

To you the Nigerian military may seem all knowing to you that's your limited experiential parochial perspective.

Be ASSUMPTIVE about your own lack of knowledge but don't assume that everyone is like you.

I for one don't have your view.

#CION

bidexiii:
#CION

what rifle is this and which arm of service is the guy with?

komekn:


If you the Nigerian military may seem all knowing to you that's your limited experiential parochial perspective.

Be ASSUMPTIVE about your own lack of knowledge but don't assume that everyone is like you.

I for one don't have your view.

Condescending oaf. If you think you grammatical thuggery will make you suddenly look knowledgeable. I tell you, you're deceiving yourself

oyinpr:
what rifle is this and which arm of service is the guy with?

NAF SF and on twitter he says it's An AK Alfa. Beautiful Rifle I must say

komekn:


If you the Nigerian military may seem all knowing to you that's your limited experiential parochial perspective.

Be ASSUMPTIVE about your own lack of knowledge but don't assume that everyone is like you.

I for one don't have your view.

Thanks boss

BREAKING::

Nigerian Troops Repelled An Attack Launched By ISWAP Insurgents In Monguno, They Neutralized The Insurgents And Recovered Gun Trucks .

willybaby:
Wow thanks for the insight, I never knew RCWs were that expensive I pray proforce and Co comes to our rescue soon, locally made should be cheaper

RWSs are expensive to buy. How about the cost of owning them? .
The use case most half educated commentators on Nairaland continue to harp on would result in the expense of 2 or 3 times more ammo than manually operated turrets. Most of the best RWS sensors also (unfortunately) lead to operator tunnel vision of the battlespace for as much as 60% of the cases of use.

There is no case to make for RWS that improved training and TTTPs won't better on manual turret

RiceProducers:


RWSs are expensive to buy. How about the cost of owning them? .
The use case most half educated commentators on Nairaland continue to harp on would result in the expense of 2 or 3 times more ammo than manually operated turrets. Most of the best RWS sensors also (unfortunately) lead to operator tunnel vision of the battlespace for as much as 60% of the cases of use.

There is no case to make for RWS that improved training and TTTPs won't better on manual turret

I must say this thread is slowly picking up once again.. loving the different opinions on RWS..

RiceProducers:


RWSs are expensive to buy. How about the cost of owning them? .
The use case most half educated commentators on Nairaland continue to harp on would result in the expense of 2 or 3 times more ammo than manually operated turrets. Most of the best RWS sensors also (unfortunately) lead to operator tunnel vision of the battlespace for as much as 60% of the cases of use.

There is no case to make for RWS that improved training and TTTPs won't better on manual turret

On the boldened, I disagree with you, the precision RCWS brings ensures effective use of bullets in a way that you can hit the same spot over and over again until you've taken your target out compared to the Quantity of bullets that would have been fired in bursts by a manual gunner most of which would not even hit the target due to poor stability, recoil and limited accuracy of the gunner. The safety of the gunner is also another important thing that RCWS offer. Not to even talk about the thermal and night vision cameras and the various other sensors that are force multipliers that RCWS offers.
RCWS is a force multiplier and the military should look into getting it when there is enough spare resources, while it is expensive to get and operate, it is cost efficient when you look at the advantages. But before you start considering getting force multipliers, you must first have a meaningful force and that has been the point of my discussion over time. . RCWS will greatly increase the effectiveness and accuracy of the army but we must first have a strong army as a foundation for it. There is no current threat that warrants the spending of huge sums on RCWS at the expense of protected mobility that is an emergency that platforms such as the VT-4 tanks and ST-1 combat vehicles can't take care of howbeit at increased costs and I'm not even talking about the RCWS that comes with these platforms. Also, it would be far more reasonable in terms of scale of preference and opportunity cost to buy more tanks and other multipurpose AFVs such as assault guns and tank destroyers that can serve the purpose of IFVs to some extent while providing other capabilities before going for dedicated platforms such as the IFVs.

As for me, my scale of preference is as follows;

1)Several hundreds APCs/MRAPs(tracked and wheeled) but the modular type that can be upgraded in batches into more dedicated platforms later in future when the money is available. Something sort of what Algeria is doing with the Nimr. Considering that SALWs and IEDs currently pose the greatest threats to our troops and will remain so for a long time, it is only natural that we invest in protected mobility first.
2) Tanks of various categories in proportion the army sees fit, this includes tank destroyers and assault guns.
3) artilleries both SPH and towed artilleries, motar tubes too(mortar carriers have been considered as an upgrade of APCs)
4) vehicles in other dedicated roles falls in this category, the army can start fine tuning its arsenal when they are done getting the basics.
Many of the APCs and MRAPs can be upgraded into all sorts of AFVs when the need arises.

Whyem15:



On the boldened, I disagree with you, the precision RCWS brings ensures effective use of bullets in a way that you can hit the same spot over and over again until you've taken your target out compared to the Quantity of bullets that would have been fired in bursts by a manual gunner most of which would not even hit the target due to poor stability, recoil and limited accuracy of the gunner. The safety of the gunner is also another important thing that RCWS offer. Not to even talk about the thermal and night vision cameras and the various other sensors that are force multipliers that RCWS offers.
RCWS is a force multiplier and the military should look into getting it when there is enough spare resources, while it is expensive to get and operate, it is cost efficient when you look at the advantages. But before you start considering getting force multipliers, you must first have a meaningful force and that has been the point of my discussion over time. . RCWS will greatly increase the effectiveness and accuracy of the army but we must first have a strong army as a foundation for it. There is no current threat that warrants the spending of huge sums on RCWS at the expense of protected mobility that is an emergency that platforms such as the VT-4 tanks and ST-1 combat vehicles can't take care of howbeit at increased costs and I'm not even talking about the RCWS that comes with these platforms. Also, it would be far more reasonable in terms of scale of preference and opportunity cost to buy more tanks and other multipurpose AFVs such as assault guns and tank destroyers that can serve the purpose of IFVs to some extent while providing other capabilities before going for dedicated platforms such as the IFVs.

My dear friend, please post a YouTube video of RWS in action within a fluid and dynamic battlefield. I am now certain that some people don't know what they are talking about.
I want to see RWS being fired from inside the vehicle with hostiles and friendlies all around and what advantages these your "magic weapons" actually confer.

RiceProducers:


My dear friend, please post a YouTube video of RWS in action within a fluid and dynamic battlefield. I am now certain that some people don't know what they are talking about.
I want to see RWS being fired from inside the vehicle with hostiles and friendlies all around and what advantages these your "magic weapons" actually confer.

RCWS on land systems are relatively new concepts and most armies are just fielding it as such it will be very difficult to find the type of videos you are asking for. But theoretically, it is a fact that RCWS are designed for precision and efficiency. I will search YouTube for the video, if I find, I will post and if I don't, the absence of such video evidence does not prove or disprove anything other than the fact that it hasn't been recorded in battle.


Mind you, the navy and airforce has been operating forms of RCWS for years and there are several videos of it's effectiveness.

SUSTAIN TEMPO OF OPERATIONS AGAINST ALL CRIMINAL ELEMENTS - CAS CHARGES TROOPS

The Chief of the Air Staff (CAS), Air Marshal Oladayo Amao has charged troops of Operation GAMA AIKI (OPGA) and personnel of 013 Quick Response Force (013 QRF), Minna, Niger State to sustain the tempo of operations and continue to fight gallantly until insurgents, armed bandits and all other criminal elements are completely eliminated and peace restored to the State and all other troubled parts of the country. Air Marshal Amao gave the charge while celebrating Christmas with the troops of Air Component of OPGA in Minna.

Represented by the Deputy Director of Operations, Headquarters NAF, Air Commodore Sunday Aneke, the CAS noted that the lunch also provided an opportunity for the NAF to remember the sacrifices of fallen heroes who have paid the supreme price in the service to the country.
According to him, the security threats facing the country and the challenges they present to the attainment of national development goals require the emplacement of robust security architecture capable of rapid employment of airpower in the full spectrum of warfare. The NAF he stated, operating in concert with sister Services and other security agencies, has continued to courageously confront various security threats, while recording tangible results in the various theatres of operations. “I must therefore state that I am proud of the efforts of all our officers, airmen and airwomen participating in Internal Security operations in different parts of the country”.
While appreciating the President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces for his continued support to the Armed Forces of Nigeria especially the NAF, the CAS stated that the AC OPGA has continued to perform very critical roles in providing the much needed air support for the effective conduct of ground operations by the Land Component. The air operations he disclosed, have been immensely instrumental in curtailing the activities of the terrorists and denying them freedom of action. “It is gratifying to note that operational manpower development in the NAF recently received a boost with the winging of 26 new pilots and 31 operators since my assumption of Office. In the same vein, I am happy to note that we currently have a total of 195 officers, airmen and airwomen undergoing various training courses abroad cutting across several specialties and trades. In addition, 12 student pilots are undergoing Basic Fighter Training at 403 Flying Training School, Kano, while 12 others are undergoing Basic Transport Training at 401 Flying Training School, Kaduna. These courses are aimed at maintaining combat readiness by increasing the number of pilots to man our ever-increasing inventory of aircraft”, he said.

In his remarks, the Commander 103 QRF, Group Captain Elisha Bindul stated that the presence of CAS during festive periods remained a huge source of motivation and indicative of his commitment to the welfare and morale of troops of OPGA. Such visits, according to Group Captain Bindul , demonstrated the innate desire of the CAS to give the troops a sense of belonging, realizing that they are spending the festive season in the frontlines and away from their families. While thanking the CAS for meeting to all their welfare demands, the Commander reassured him of their firm dedication to sustain the fight against all forms of criminality in Niger State and North West in general.

Visits and interactions of this nature provides an opportunity to not only bond with frontline troops but also to promote esprit de corps, comradeship and regimentation.

Edward Gabkwet
Air Commodore
Director of Public Relations and Information
Nigerian Air Force

28 December 2021

More....

Betrayal of Nigeria

For all comments here doing important debate on RCWS, IFV, MRAP, overwhelming force destruction of enemy VS APC, Gun truck, HMG, stalemate 10 year ding dong war without end.

Intel from young admin staff filing top level official documents in highest offices of federal govt. of Nigeria, confirms one pending procurement offer roughly 1,300 vehicles of triple multifunction wheeled IFV MRAP APC mounted with RCWS auto cannon 25mm, auto grenade 40mm, GPMG 7.62mm, specs data, engine speed 120 kmh, body resists 14.5mm AP, belly resists 10kg TNT, thermals night vision sights 15km, fully funded by manufacturer 0% deposit payment (full repayment of the soft credit is scheduled forward) for FG in sweetheart deal, is gathering dust inside file as we speak. Its national betrayal by those privileged VIPs enjoying benefits in dollars from all those 300 half-usefull China and Dubai armoured vehicles imported for war without any weapon, to weld 12.7mm HMG, same weapon used by Jihad insurgents, armed bandits, etc to keep on war without winner permanent stalemate

keep2silent:
Betrayal of Nigeria

For all comments here doing important debate on RCWS, IFV, MRAP, overwhelming force destruction of enemy VS APC, Gun truck, HMG, stalemate 10 year ding dong war without end.

Intel from young admin staff filing top level official documents in highest offices of federal govt. of Nigeria, confirms one pending procurement offer roughly 1,300 vehicles of triple multifunction wheeled IFV MRAP APC mounted with RCWS auto cannon 25mm, auto grenade 40mm, GPMG 7.62mm, specs data, engine speed 120 kmh, body resists 14.5mm AP, belly resists 10kg TNT, thermals night vision sights 15km, fully funded by manufacturer 0% deposit payment for FG in sweetheart deal, is gathering dust inside file as we speak. Its national betrayal by those privileged VIPs enjoying benefits in dollars from all those 300 half-usefull China and Dubai armoured vehicles imported for war without any weapon, to weld 12.7mm HMG, same weapon used by Jihad insurgents, armed bandits, etc to keep on war without winner permanent stalemate

He should take the evidence to the press if such truly exists, posting the "gist" on nairaland or anywhere else causes more harm than good and I hope that young admin staff will be willing to testify in your support if it comes to that because I wonder what's in it for the manufacturer that they will donate 1300 of such to a country without receiving anything in return.

That sounds like a scam on paper - "Sweetheart deal", "0% commitment by FG", "multi function (transformer) vehicle" etc.
Why not include that it shoots laser rays and electromagnetic bullets and it is being offered for free?