What are the possible weaknesses of our military?
-
Where to run ? You think that time is like peace time which countries with open arms welcome you ? You end up like the vietnam boat people , stay in refugees camp till you die and your next generation die there also.Originally posted by Airforceone:In time of war will there be enough Singaporean, willing to stay to defend this country?!
Its about willingness and sacrifices. Many will run... not balls and too weak.
You got nowhere to go but fight ! and fight you have to survive ! -
I think it is very unfair to say that SAF did not develop an effective counter against low-tech MLRS... yes they may fire the first salvo.... so what it hit a few blocks of flats .... please don't over estimate the power of hit. This is not movies show which everyone have unlimited supplies and keep firing.Originally posted by tvdog:I think SAF has yet to develop an effective counter against the Malaysian's very low-tech MLRS. These will be used more as terror weapons to hit our city than as a military weapon. They can hide easily and fire salvoes at our airbases and- say Ang Mo Kio. We can only detect the launchers after they have fired their ordnance and we have no effective ways of completely destroying these rockets once they're airborne.
Another problem I sense is the lack of real killer aggression in our soldiers. In China where I now live people whom have served in the PLA say that the PLA still believes that you can only get tough and aggressive soldiers by using frequent beatings during training. The stick carried by their equivalent of CSMs and officers is actually used to strike soldiers when they fcuk up.
You may laugh or it sounds babaric but this is the tactic many armies like
And SAF has decided we don't need bayonets anymore as evidenced by the SAR-21.
Remember there is weakness in MlRS too. They need relatively open ground. Also with artilliary tracking radar, where they fire from is can be calculated, thus before the 1st MLRS round landed, SAF already have the firing solution and our own artilleries already return fire back. Yep you may say that the MLRS fire and move away, but don't forget we fire back area target also ! how many will be successful to get away ? If there is MLRS surviving, the planes will on sites to take out the rest with helicopters behind to hunt down the rest.
Also by then their supplies is cut off, with no fuel and ammo. You think the the MLRS can do much ?
You must ask also, can the other side also stop our howister rounds ? They also have no way to stop the rounds once we fired. You may argue yep their rocket bigger !!! But rocket big because most part of it is to carry fuel to propellel it . They fire one rocket ! We fire 3 rounds to make up the size then same same.... then compare rates right .... sorry man howister reload faster lah !!! haha...
Also what make you think Singapore is not into mulitple rocket launcher ? With every thing we running ahead ? you think we left out something so important ? -
in 30 minutes a battery of 18 SAF arty guns can easily deliver 3,240 shells firing at a rate of 6 rounds per minute per gun.
using cargo rounds that carry 64 bomblet each(similarly found on ASTROS rocket) , that's a staggering 207,360 bomblet... that's massive firepower!
how many rockets(each with 64 bomblet) can a battery of 18 MRLS fire in 30 minutes?
SAF is wiser not to buy MRLS. -
Prehaps one should get rid of the mentality that we will just walk over any potential agressor... while our forces are quite capable of fighting, a conduct of war is going have some losses for our side.
The real question is, despite all this, can we still do what it takes to win the day or make the cost of enemy victory so high that war is not a feasible option? I think the answer is yes. The malaysian MLRS is more of a political statement then a stragetic asset, more of them trying to pit the balance more in their favour by saying that they have their ways of bloodying us as well as we have our ways of doing the same to them.
Another thing about the SAF is how it can be activated and mobilized and organized far, far faster then anything else in the region, and that is also a great deterence factor.
In terms of agression and competence you'd be surprised by how we measure up to other professional armed forces like the US army. While training against their OPFOR in the US, a rifle platoon of NSFs and not regulars impressed the americans by achieving a kill loss ratio that was half that of the norm for their OPFOR engagements. The OPFOR soldiers commented on how the "little guys in dark green" were killing them from as far as 300m and how they would rather face their own troops then SAF riflemen NSF.
Now being an NSF sect com myself, I sometimes wonder how the typical cockup NSF rifle platoon could ever do this, but apparently it's possible. -
What are the possible weaknesses of our military?
Do we have the will to fight and protect this land? Also the Believe that we r able to defend??? -
Very interesting.This would have to be evaluated against another tale of our Guards being routed and overrun on a coastal hook by a USMC battalion.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Prehaps one should get rid of the mentality that we will just walk over any potential agressor... while our forces are quite capable of fighting, a conduct of war is going have some losses for our side.
The real question is, despite all this, can we still do what it takes to win the day or make the cost of enemy victory so high that war is not a feasible option? I think the answer is yes. The malaysian MLRS is more of a political statement then a stragetic asset, more of them trying to pit the balance more in their favour by saying that they have their ways of bloodying us as well as we have our ways of doing the same to them.
Another thing about the SAF is how it can be activated and mobilized and organized far, far faster then anything else in the region, and that is also a great deterence factor.
In terms of agression and competence you'd be surprised by how we measure up to other professional armed forces like the US army. While training against their OPFOR in the US, a rifle platoon of NSFs and not regulars impressed the americans by achieving a kill loss ratio that was half that of the norm for their OPFOR engagements. The OPFOR soldiers commented on how the "little guys in dark green" were killing them from as far as 300m and how they would rather face their own troops then SAF riflemen NSF.
Now being an NSF sect com myself, I sometimes wonder how the typical cockup NSF rifle platoon could ever do this, but apparently it's possible.
However, the cock-up you see is not the actual output of the NSFs.Motivation and a desire to protect things you hold dear are very powerful driving forces in an era where possessions mean a lot and we are very possessive people. -
i agree with ur pt. One of my regular guards PL sgt back in my unit before i ord ( me not guards ), he was invovled in a exercise with the US side. What I heard from him was, before the battalion arrive at the BUA side, only a platoon strength survived. The rest picked out by US snipers.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Very interesting.This would have to be evaluated against another tale of our Guards being routed and overrun on a coastal hook by a USMC battalion.
However, the cock-up you see is not the actual output of the NSFs.Motivation and a desire to protect things you hold dear are very powerful driving forces in an era where possessions mean a lot and we are very possessive people. -
I guess it all depends on the men and the ability of the commanders on the gound to motivate them... but being a conscript force is certainly not a liability esp. when you are fighting for something.
The SAF needs to be more open about failure though (aka. the Guards story), or else we risk breeding victory disease, but I guess this is a problem with Singaporeans in general... -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:1) Prehaps one should get rid of the mentality that we will just walk over any potential agressor...
2) The malaysian MLRS is more of a political statement then a stragetic asset, more of them trying to pit the balance more in their favour by saying that they have their ways of bloodying us as well as we have our ways of doing the same to them.
3) In terms of agression and competence you'd be surprised by how we measure up to other professional armed forces like the US army.
4) Now being an NSF sect com myself, I sometimes wonder how the typical cockup NSF rifle platoon could ever do this, but apparently it's possible.
1) More should share this sentiment that while we are mighty, firepower does not translate into victory. Again reference US involvement in Korea and Vietnam.
2) Like I said, the MLRS is more of a terror weapon. (Another point to note is that the MLRS - though inaccurate - outranges all our howitzers (I think).
3) I am concerned that we keep comparing ourselves to the US and modelling our armed forces after them. Americans have mostly acted stupidly and with much arrogance in all their post WW2 wars. Americans are tough fighters but they really give the impression of a non-thinking army.
4) Maybe the USMC platoon they faced was a typical cockup USMC platoon also.
US is the most powerful and most well-armed force in the world today without question. But let's not confuse this with the actual quality of their fighting men.
A historian writing about the Korean War noted that the US make horribly stupid mistakes at the beginning of every conflict as if it had never fought in a war before. But US has the capacity to sustain these setbacks and eventually use their overwhelming strength and power to simply outlast the enemy if they can't outfight them.
We would do better to continue to model ourselves closely after the Israelis than the Americans. British troops always gave a sterling performance wherever they go. Even the Australians gave outstanding account of themselves in Vietnam. The PLA in Korea had respect for the Australians for fighting abilities and the Turks for sheer bravery. We shouldn't hold the American soldiers in too high regard. -
yep, I feel conscript army have more motivation to fight for what they owned. Israel had proven that. but it all depends on the nature of the conflict too. If they are fighting for survival or fighting as a aggressor.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I guess it all depends on the men and the ability of the commanders on the gound to motivate them... but being a conscript force is certainly not a liability esp. when you are fighting for something.
The SAF needs to be more open about failure though (aka. the Guards story), or else we risk breeding victory disease, but I guess this is a problem with Singaporeans in general... -
First, this incident already happen long ago - because seem everyone involve already ROD.Originally posted by pufferfish_79:i agree with ur pt. One of my regular guards PL sgt back in my unit before i ord ( me not guards ), he was invovled in a exercise with the US side. What I heard from him was, before the battalion arrive at the BUA side, only a platoon strength survived. The rest picked out by US snipers.
This is also very unfair judgement to the guards unit. Those days , I guess the guards are arm like other units, M203, saw, M16 ......... just plain simple units. While the USMC , have sniper teams ... think that war game was lopside and the victory was decided even before it began.
Given today, the guard unit have totally revamp themselves, they are arm totally different and thus give the USMC a good match. Today the guard units will have a few LSV to give that additional firepower, which make up for USMC sniper teams . -
sss
-
1) More should share this sentiment that while we are mighty, firepower does not translate into victory. Again reference US involvement in Korea and Vietnam. .
Mighty and firepower do not EQUATE victory... but lack of might will invite war, and lack of firepower could cost you dearly in terms of soldiers lives.
in war... one do not simply seeks to win... but to win with the minimal loses, that's where firepower is suppose to help achieve. and even if we should loose... the heavier firepower on our side would ensure that we exact a heavy price from the enemy.2) Like I said, the MLRS is more of a terror weapon. (Another point to note is that the MLRS - though inaccurate - outranges all our howitzers (I think). .
all weapons are terror weapon, even your bayonet is a terror weapon, only different is the level of terror induced.
range of weapon is not everything, whats the point of being able to shoot beyond the moon but miss the moon by a billion miles?3) I am concerned that we keep comparing ourselves to the US and modelling our armed forces after them. Americans have mostly acted stupidly and with much arrogance in all their post WW2 wars. Americans are tough fighters but they really give the impression of a non-thinking army. .
that is stereotypical thinking... in war, there is no such thing as acting stupid and still win a war.... only that on hindsight.. people would always question about the "possibilities" of alternatives....4) Maybe the USMC platoon they faced was a typical cockup USMC platoon also. .
that would not be a fair assessment in my opinion, it belittles not only the USMC, but their opponents as well.... in my opinion, both sides give their best, but ultimately, there has to be a winner in any competition... but that does not automatcally implies that the looser is a bunch of cockups.US is the most powerful and most well-armed force in the world today without question. But let's not confuse this with the actual quality of their fighting men. .
wrong... the overall combat capabilities of a unit is not merely measured by the number of push-ups each soldier can do... but rather the complete overall aspect of the unit including trainning, leadership and without a doubt... in the heralding modern age, the importance of technology and equipment cannot be understated and could very well prove to be the key determinants in any outcome.A historian writing about the Korean War noted that the US make horribly stupid mistakes at the beginning of every conflict as if it had never fought in a war before. But US has the capacity to sustain these setbacks and eventually use their overwhelming strength and power to simply outlast the enemy if they can't outfight them. .
on hindsight... there will also be 1001 better ways, but then non of the 1001 ways guarantees anything nor victory as the enemy would also have 1001 ways to counter your 1001 better moves.We would do better to continue to model ourselves closely after the Israelis than the Americans. British troops always gave a sterling performance wherever they go. Even the Australians gave outstanding account of themselves in Vietnam. The PLA in Korea had respect for the Australians for fighting abilities and the Turks for sheer bravery. We shouldn't hold the American soldiers in too high regard.
we should continue to learn from the best, but we must find path our own roads.
there is nothing wrong in holding americans in high regards... they fought and they won against adverseries that most other nation would not dare challenge.[/quote] -
True that we were only told the outcome of that incident and not the circumstances surrounding it. I had fought guards units last time. I know their fighting capability . Btw, now not only the guards have LSVs. Infantry had LSV units within the battalion too.Originally posted by storywolf:First, this incident already happen long ago - because seem everyone involve already ROD.
This is also very unfair judgement to the guards unit. Those days , I guess the guards are arm like other units, M203, saw, M16 ......... just plain simple units. While the USMC , have sniper teams ... think that war game was lopside and the victory was decided even before it began.
Given today, the guard unit have totally revamp themselves, they are arm totally different and thus give the USMC a good match. Today the guard units will have a few LSV to give that additional firepower, which make up for USMC sniper teams . -
Mighty and firepower do not EQUATE victory... but lack of might will invite war...
Did I propose we "reduce" our firepower?all weapons are terror weapon...range of weapon is not everything, whats the point of being able to shoot beyond the moon but miss the moon by a billion miles?
You are restating my very same points.that is stereotypical thinking... (about Americans) in war, there is no such thing as acting stupid and still win a war.... only that on hindsight.. people would always question about the "possibilities" of alternatives....
All I can say is read up on books on American combat performance post WW2. Of course, you should read books that offer a more objective POV. US is better at packaging its propaganda better than anyone else so ...that would not be a fair assessment in my opinion, it belittles not only the USMC, but their opponents as well.... in my opinion, both sides give their best, but ultimately, there has to be a winner in any competition... but that does not automatcally implies that the looser is a bunch of cockups.
That was a joke offered in a half-hearrted defense of our own beleagued Guards unit. The word "cockup" I was quoting someone else. So you can stand down.wrong... the overall combat capabilities of a unit is not merely measured by the number of push-ups each soldier can do... but rather the complete overall aspect of the unit including trainning, leadership and without a doubt... in the heralding modern age, the importance of technology and equipment cannot be understated and could very well prove to be the key determinants in any outcome.
Again, where did I say it is not important to be well-armed and equipped with the latest technology.on hindsight... there will also be 1001 better ways, but then non of the 1001 ways guarantees anything nor victory as the enemy would also have 1001 ways to counter your 1001 better moves.
The quote from this historian is saying that the Americans don't seem to learn from past mistakes. We are not talking about hindsight versus... etc.there is nothing wrong in holding americans in high regards... they fought and they won against adverseries that most other nation would not dare challenge.
And against whom did the Americans achieve victories that other nations dare not challenge? -
There is nothing to suggest that the quality of american troops is below average, if anything, they are probably one of the finest soldiers around. Individually and on the tatical level, they can more then hold their own.
The only problem is that it seems that they don't know what to do with all this quality, judging from the way they are deployed. The SAF has a wide diet of armed forces that it learns from, and now, moving onto the 3G force, it is forging its own path to tailor to its own needs... I'm just interested to see where all this leads. -
On the subject of military exercises - I've been involved on a number of exercises where my company or battalion (depending on the scale of the exercises) played the enemy troops. In most execises, we are told, ultimately, to let the larger, friendly forces, overrun us. Even if we played hard - we still let them win. People who have been involved in these exercises should know this better, and understand the circumstances and objectives of the exercise play, rather than to listen to "tales".
I've been on exercise with the US Marines - my company played enemy - going against a force of US Marine battalion plus, supported by their amphibious APC, plus the rest of my battalion (the remaining 2 companies plus the support company). Of course they will overrun us.
Same thing during BTEC - my company played enemy against one infantry battalion - we defend, then let them overrun us, as according to the needs of the exercise. Results - Infantymen going around with tales of how they beat a Guards unit.
But of course - my company have gone successfully against other larger forces. That is a different story. -
I can safely say our Guards battalions can take on the Marines head on in jungle or FIBUA, however the Marines have the edge when it comes to amphibious vehicle operations.Originally posted by pufferfish_79:True that we were only told the outcome of that incident and not the circumstances surrounding it. I had fought guards units last time. I know their fighting capability . Btw, now not only the guards have LSVs. Infantry had LSV units within the battalion too.
But the LSV has really made the Guards an Airmobile mechanized battalion, the template for future air mechanized forces. -
Any suggestions to overcome some of these weaknesses mentioned:
1. inexperience.
2. Lack of Mental endurance and aggression.
3. over-reliance on technology? -
Third world peasant boys from China, Korea, Vietnam, drugged out Somalians etc all beat back the US army. So we should have no problem : ) as long as we deny the US the kind of battles they are good at fighting.
-
why on earth are you talking about us as if they are our enemy????
-
Look at the kill ratio... 'beating back' the US Army (more like fustrating) is not so much as defeating them then trying to drown them in blood... a tatic I'm sure you would be in the forefront of if we ever use something like that.Originally posted by tvdog:Third world peasant boys from China, Korea, Vietnam, drugged out Somalians etc all beat back the US army. So we should have no problem : ) as long as we deny the US the kind of battles they are good at fighting.
Nobody said they were invincible or unkillable, but it would be foolish to think it's easy to take them on... just look at Saddam who sent thousands of conscripts to their deaths thinking it easy to create another Vietnam. -
Someone brought up the topic of wargame between SAF and USMC.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:why on earth are you talking about us as if they are our enemy???? -
relax pplOriginally posted by tvdog:Someone brought up the topic of wargame between SAF and USMC. 
though it sounds stupid, but through time, friends became enemies, enemies became friends...so...no offence intended...but i won't be surprised...
-
Actually the people he sent to create another Vietnam werent conscripts but hits most hardline supporters and soldiers. Yes his army collasped and he got caught.But the US is still stuck there and being bleed dry. It doesnt matter if it's Arabs and foreigners.What matters is the result.And i dare say this is another Vietnam for the USOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Look at the kill ratio... 'beating back' the US Army (more like fustrating) is not so much as defeating them then trying to drown them in blood... a tatic I'm sure you would be in the forefront of if we ever use something like that.
Nobody said they were invincible or unkillable, but it would be foolish to think it's easy to take them on... just look at Saddam who sent thousands of conscripts to their deaths thinking it easy to create another Vietnam.