The SAAF Forum

@ Eugene
Was it normal for other services to have command like that over each other? Sounds like the airfoce character wanted to show power over the navy guy, "Wat maak jy?"

Time spent in Potch, without any naval rank to look after us, meant we had to look after ourselves. We were +- 110 puddle pirates in a camp of 3000 plus brown jobs. As Eugene said, we used every opportunity to show up the pongo's.
Three things made us stand out. First, we wore black boots, second we (initially) had no badge on the black beret, and lastly we retained our naval drill. A two stripe corporal would have us fall-in just to make us drill.
We got our own back by resolutely marching at 90 beats per second where the norm was 150+ while under training. The result was that we arrived after the rest of the parade and made the s/major mad. We would also over-emphasize the heel clicking. That always made an impression when the whole battalion was on parade. Attention sounded like ... CRACK..THUMP.
Saluting was also a way to mess with authority. I once sat on a gash fanny as a lieutenant walked by. At the last moment I stood grudgingly to attention, and the poor fella asked why I had not saluted him. I explained that on board a ship we cannot salute all day and that once a day is acceptable. To this he blew a gasket and said we were not on a ship. I told him that any base for the navy is considered a ship (klipskip). Once he absorbed that he said that this was the first time we had passed and that I should salute. I replied that all the brown jobs looked the same and gave him a poor example of a salute. After the usual uitkak, with the rest of our group watching and laughing at him, he quickly dissapeared.
Back to uniform, a common form of punishment was to tree aan in one uniform, do PT, then be chased back to change again and again. Mixed with PT eventually you were left with a pile of dirty uniform. This would be followed by inspection. Well we refused to do PT let alone run in our stepouts, no matter how hard they tried. Potch was tough and we were easy targets, but Foxtrot company always won the Saturday 2,4 and training assessments. We stuck together .

I have heard many story likes that. A few navy guys all ways get one over the pogos. Most Pogos don't know any thing about the navy.

A common punishment in the NZDF too, Change Parades!

We'd form up for inspection outside the orderly's hut and be told to report back in 2 minutes wearing whatever took their fancy. One boot, one sneaker, thermals over our SD with TRG jersey and helmet etc. My platoon barracks was conveniently located adjacent to the hut but I felt sorry for other platoons whose barracks were on the opposite side of the parade ground. They kakked off more than anyone.



To give you a rough idea, when I started basic training in 01/05, we were told that it cost about NZ$6500 to equip a recruit.

There will be items I forget but several changes of PT gear, sneakers, several changes of FSMO (field service marching order), wet weather gear (expensive), thermal gear, webbing and equipment (Swiss army knife, toggle rope, canteens, dixies, hexamine tabs and stove, first aid dressings, Silva compass, entrenching tool, saw, gloves etc), pack and frame plus sleeping bag, water proof cover, hoochie (tent) poles, pegs, four AUG magazines. SDAR (service dress all ranks), shoes, tunic, berets etc.

_________________
A plan is simply a basis for change.

An article about some French "future soldier" equipment - http://www.janes.com/article/27223/indi ... s-step-out

It's one of those myths that float around that the R1 is heavier than the R4.

My eldest brother carried the R1 throughout his national service and the various camps he did, with the exception of the last camp, when he received an R4. He also believed the R1 was heavier, but it is simply a matter of perception.

I used both.

R4 empty - 4,3kg
R1 empty - 4,3kg

R4 with 35 round loaded mag - 5,1kg
R1 with 20 round loaded mag - 5,1kg

Yep. They weigh the same.
Their balance is different though, with the R1 being about 10cm longer, and it didn't have the folding stock.
So compared to the R4, its length (and solid, non skeleton stock) is why people think it is heavier, in my humble opinion.

The nylon mag for the R4 shaves off 0,3 kg, but I only had one, which I, um, "requisitioned" off an Ops Medic at some stage...

The R1 had much more stopping power, but this is balanced out by the R4 having more rounds, and the fact that the average infantryman can carry more rounds of 5,56mm than 7,62mm for a given weight.

The R4 is a rarity in that it is an extremely well built assault rifle. The receiver is machined from a solid billet, rather than being cheap pressed steel.

It is extremely reliable. It goes "bang" when you pull the trigger, and fires the same round to the same distance as some of the more newer assault rifles.

Thusly, a minor upgrade or facelift is all that is needed.

Nylon mags across the board, some weight reduction, and an optical sight, and you will have a rifle that stands up to any rifle in the world.

Vektor did come up with the CR-21, which was basically the internals and magazine of the R4 repackaged into a polymer bullpup body.
It got the weight down to 3,7kg, and basically had all the things I mentioned earlier. (optical sight, weight reduction, nylon mags)
The advantage was that you could recycle many of the parts of the current R4 inventory into it. It wasn't taken up though.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/safr/vektor-cr-21-e.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vektor_CR-21

As a new Navy NSM in 1980 we were issued with 7.62 FN FAL (Belgian made, wood furniture, no blitzbreker). Good, solid, proven. Shot only once and hated it.
Mustered as a Marine and issued a brand new H&K G3a3. Story was these were "captured" in harbour raid by the Recces in Angola.
Most of the guys new nothing about the G3 and there was talk that it was Russian. No-one new how to dissassemble/clean it and no instructor in Saldanha or Potch had any knowledge of it. Well engineered, (stampings and plastic furniture, aluminium mags). Carried it constantly. Some of the Marines "just happened" to break the stock to get it replaced with a R1 (local FN FAL). Towards the end of training we received the then new R4. I later shot the M16, R5, AKM and Lee-Enfield.
So without going into the weight/length/calibre/mag capacity issue I offer my opinion on the soldiers thinking.
Telling a troepie that his rifle has a bottle opener on it, a bipod, a 35 (50) round magazine, folding stock, night sights, better ammunition? etc is great.
A troepie must feel proud and confident in his weapons capabilities and any "new" weapon is immediately the "wonder" weapon.

My feelings
FN - Hated it because it formed part of basic training (marching, drilling D-formation, tear smoke etc). It had long lost its blue and rusted at the first opportunity. Had to be constantly cleaned and since we only shot it on one occassion, it seemed just like another form of punishment. No sling supplied. Unless the gas regulator balanced, repeated stoppages.
G3 - Loved it. Brand new. I new the weapon and its history, Could operate, strip and clean ( a bit more difficult to clean than the FN). Since I now had a modern(newer) rifle and my life could now depend on it, I took more care of it and respected it more. Although it was about the same weight and length it "felt" lighter. Shot it many tmes and found snap-shooting and low light shooting easy. Never had a stoppage. The aluminium mags did not last (basically meant to be thrown away). The front hand guard (slim) got hot during rapid fire.
R1 - In Potch some Marines managed to bend the G3 barrels, shot the Blitzbreker off and break the stock. This was done through ignorance or wilfully as they wanted the R1 which looked newer and more dependable. Again balance the gas and you have a dependable rifle.
R4 - Bells and whistles. A good dependable rifle. Would sometimes go bang when it was'nt meant to (mostly driver error, but also a firing pin that was slightly too long with no return spring). Folding stock meant it was easier to move around/transport. When the carrying handles were removed, not easy to carry comfortably without the sling (thank goodness a wide sling). No stoppages
R5 - as above. Did'nt miss the bipod. But easier to carry.
The others - M16 etc. Should not really comment as I only shot them, did not carry them. But all decent weapons.

To sum up. All weapons are good by the time they reach the troepies hands (except the SA80 which needed H&K to make it reasonable). A lot has to do with the troepie being confident in the weapon and its abilities. I think this is the biggest factor. Look at the negative attitude towards the M16 when it was issued (stories that it never needed cleaning and then the US issued the troops in Vietnam with ammo leaving high residue) and the SA80 that only the British could design and not accept was a piece of %$#&. The AK (and clones - R4?) may be dated and a symbol of Soviet power/terrorists etc. But it has been used worldwide (and by special forces nogal) and is still being manufactured in various guises.

My choice --- The G3
Like your wife, you look after her and she will be by your side when you need. Like your dog, give it the right food and it will be dependable. Like your car, clean and service and it won't let you down. But like all of them sometimes you need to upgrade. GOTTA GO - wife just read this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Added pic of three rifles on the step of our bungalow at 3SAI Potch early 1981. The R4 had just been issued to the new Jan intake infantry. The R1 was being issued to us Marines as the G3's became unserviceable. And then in front, my G3a3.

And then a pic of myself in full kit about to go to asgate or the range. Th smile didn't last long. Again my G3a3.

pcc ... you still there mate? To which hospital do we need to go to visit?

_________________
A plan is simply a basis for change.

Off-topic question: how hard s it to acquire a rifle? And once in possession of one, is it legal to use it to shoot people? (No, not like Rambo. As a method of self-defense)

_________________
Bückstabü!

Depends on what sort of rifle. I believe that semi-automatic rifles in South Africa are restricted so your options would generally be limited to bolt-action / pump / lever action. As with all firearms you'd need to apply for a licence first and pass a proficiency test. That said, self-defence is a legal motivation for owning a firearm in South Africa and whilst a bolt-action would get the job done, it's probably not the best tool in the shed for self-defence purposes!

_________________
A plan is simply a basis for change.

King, you mention self defence. Unless you reside on a farm or small-holding, a rifle might not necessarily be the best bet. Taking out a BG at 200m with a scoped rifle will get you in a lot of trouble. Most self defence firearms are pistols or possibly a shotgun or carbine. Before I dare offer more info, I would suggest you trawl a site like Gunsite on the web, visit a range and talk to members. There is a huge responsibilty attached to firearm ownership, choice of weapon and the legal use thereof. This site will not do justice to the subject.
BTW see my post above - added pics.

Cool pics PCC.

A G3 is definitely on my list of "to own" rifles when my minister of finance permits me to.

_________________
A plan is simply a basis for change.

To get a rifel like a R4(for got what the civlian simie auto only one is called) you need to proof you need it. Basical you live on a farm and feel a pistol or shot gun is not enough.

Self defence is a hard one. Just because a crook is in your house does not give you the right to kill him. Your live or some one elses live must be in danger. Some one runing away with your DVD player is not threating your live.


I have never been called in for shooting some one. But I have used phyiscal force to restrain some one. And I told the cops. Never got in troubel. Other guy lost his guns. So if you own a gun do not get drunk, get in to fight and then menstion your guns and shooting. They will take them first then go to court to see if you can get them back.

Is it possible for a private individual to own a "military style" rifle in New Zealand?

Here it's just about impossible for private individuals to own a semi-auto rifle. The only civvies who generally get to own such firearms are licenced security companies (and various criminal elements who don't bother with all the paperwork of course).