What are the possible weaknesses of our military?
-
In Vietnam, Australian troops had their own idea of counter-insurgency warfare compared to US.
Aussies practiced their doctrine of counter insurgency warfare in which pacification of villages and denial of access of these villages to VC was of primary importance.
They set up ambushes around pacified villages and had great success killing VC as they come in at night to collect food, taxes, recruits and generally to intimidate the villagers into supporting them, creating a shadow government.
Australian ambushes effectively strangled this supply of food to the point that the VC division in their area was near starvation.
This caused some VC to surrender and provide useful intel, and the rest to spend more time on the problem of feeding themselves. And in being hungry, they also became desperate and careless.
But top US brass running ordered the Australians to abandon this pacification program and fight like the Americans. This means chasing the enemy in the jungles in the hammer and anvil strategy the US thought so highly of.
And producing body count was considered the only tangible results of winning the war.
So the Australians abandoned their pacification program and went hunting, The defense of the villages were left to poorly-armed and motivated local paramilitary units whose loyalty were questionable sometimes.
So, as many VC dead as the hammer and anvil could create, these casualties were quickly replaced as the VC again had uninterrupted supply of food, medicine and recruits from the villages. The VC were also supplied from the North, but these were mainly weapons and ammo. Food and money, they got from the villages.
This is typical American unthinking cowboy mentality. We would do well to stay well away from. This Australian account is not just a small footnote - the US lost the war in Vietnam to a very bare bones army because of their lack of flexibility, poor understanding of the situation and mainly - arrogance.
The point is: Would over emphasis on military ties with US lead us to think and act like them or would it, hopefully, teach us to do the exact opposite? -
well... i think our arti has one thing good about they and that is to create a buffer zone where the mlrs can't firing in... kinda like a no mans land and that is either jb or maybe a little furting into malaysia...Originally posted by tripwire: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. -
The way I see it, there are WAY too many pencil pushers in our army leadership.
-
In a sense, based on my own experiences in NS and Reservist days, this seems to be quite true. In fact, many overseas armies dealing with our leadership are often "awed" by the relative youth of our "generals". This being told to be by an ex LTC himself. How that impacts and affects the overall effectiveness of our military is something quite unique to us as I am not sure if that is the way other armies promote their officers thru the ranks (i.e. Scholars etc.). In a way, the US and UK systems have their own elite class i.e. Sandhurst for e.g. but I am not sure if those are based on pure academic merits.Originally posted by Obersturmfuhrer:The way I see it, there are WAY too many pencil pushers in our army leadership.
What do others who are/were officers feel about this i.e. in their dealing with senior leadership in the Bn/Bde/Div or Army levels?
-
SG is big producer of landminesOriginally posted by Devilsmarlin:well... i think our arti has one thing good about they and that is to create a buffer zone where the mlrs can't firing in... kinda like a no mans land and that is either jb or maybe a little furting into malaysia...
-
Well , Israel are more then willing to loan us their nuclear weapons .Originally posted by charlize:MAD.
Singapore is a "poisoned shrimp" -
The US ROTC gives direct commissions to graduates in ROTC affiliated colleges and they serve 3 years upon graduation as a LT j.g or a 1st LT, either one.Originally posted by vaxjunior:In a sense, based on my own experiences in NS and Reservist days, this seems to be quite true. In fact, many overseas armies dealing with our leadership are often "awed" by the relative youth of our "generals". This being told to be by an ex LTC himself. How that impacts and affects the overall effectiveness of our military is something quite unique to us as I am not sure if that is the way other armies promote their officers thru the ranks (i.e. Scholars etc.). In a way, the US and UK systems have their own elite class i.e. Sandhurst for e.g. but I am not sure if those are based on pure academic merits.
What do others who are/were officers feel about this i.e. in their dealing with senior leadership in the Bn/Bde/Div or Army levels? -
Their C-130 carrying their paratroopers , would be heavily marked , from what i know ,our air-defense system is much more advanced then what you see.Originally posted by tvdog:Any war we are likely to fight in will involve relatively "low tech" enemies.
What will likely happen is that we will achieve air superiority very early on, which seems to be our doctrine anyway, hence the over empahsis on air force with an estimated 120 combat aircrafts.
In the event of a perceived threat we will likely wipe out enemies' air power early on like Israel in the Six Day War. But this depends on our judgement to take the initiative to strike first.
So what we are left to face will likely be a very conventional i.e. low tech land warfare.
Malaysians are currently concentrating on building airborne RDF battalions so it seems their strategy to counter our "Forward Defense" doctrine is to surprise attack first and land paratroops in our rear while their other forces mass for a frontal attack across the causeways. They will supplement these attacks with other "coastal hooks" which can come from the east, west or the south. Their goal will be to deny us any chance of a effective "Forward Defense" strategy by bringing the fight to our island. We can occupy as much of their forests as we want but they're gonna attack our city. Hence their employment of MLRS.
I think that us being a conscript army is not too big a problem. Another point is that the most effective units are not necessarily the NSF units. The reservist units are more experienced and also more mature and have a lot more to fight for. Israel's army is mostly conscripts also, as were many victorious armies during wars. So this is not a major problem.
For me, I think inexperience, over-reliance on technology and firepower, and under-estimation of our potential enemies' fighting prowess will cause a lot of problems.
We use words like "stupid" to describe our potential enemies. If you don't believe me there is one topic on this forum with a title of "stupid Malaysian Naval project". Many of us seem to think our potential enemies are always fcuking up or sitting around twiddling their thumbs while we talk loudly of "Forward Defense" or what super-duper combat ship or aircraft we will buy...
America was 100 times more advanced and well-armed than their enemies in Korea and Vietnam yet the enemy found ways to negate these advantages.
And our small size means that we can't even afford to lose one battle.
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 those of Japan during WW2, Russia, Korea and many specops use to produce killer instincts in soldiers.
During the time I served the instructors still pushed, dragged or kicked recruits in the backside and used very vulgar languages. Apparently now instructors can't use vulgar language and can only make a recruit do a limited number of push ups a day.
And SAF has decided we don't need bayonets anymore as evidenced by the SAR-21.
Wow...
I don't think they will risk their paratroopers , just imagine 1 missile heading for it could cost it many lives.It's impossible for tanks to simply move through the causeway , so many people will notice it lahs.
just blow up the causeway and you get stranded tanks.
If im correct, we got a swedish radar which can detect MLRS
In the future , you will be seeing Unmanned boats equipped with RPG/machine guns patrolling the singapore straits someday.
Malaysian naval ships , no doubt , are very advanced as well , but without the main technical know-how , because the Americans and Europeans are always known to withhold certain form of key technologies from the countries they sell the weapons to.
Unlike Singapore , in which it gains first hand experience in building naval ships , thats where you can know what kind of platforms you need , what kind of key technologies which you are lacking in etc..
Thats the critical differences , just like in real life , people don't sell you the best thing they got , they only sell you the 2nd best , cause they want to remain superior.
i will be the 1st to laugh if they hit our runways though.
Anyway , its so tough , even if they get the bunker busting bomb , i don't think they can destroy the H.A.S
The only problem facing us is jungle-warfare -
All the scenarios I mentioned are possibilities. I am not saying they will definitely succeed but then you cannot discount that they won't. In war nothing is predictable.Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:Their C-130 carrying their paratroopers , would be heavily marked , from what i know ,our air-defense system is much more advanced then what you see.
I don't think they will risk their paratroopers , just imagine 1 missile heading for it could cost it many lives.It's impossible for tanks to simply move through the causeway , so many people will notice it lahs.
just blow up the causeway and you get stranded tanks.
If im correct, we got a swedish radar which can detect MLRS
In the future , you will be seeing Unmanned boats equipped with RPG/machine guns patrolling the singapore straits someday.
Malaysian naval ships , no doubt , are very advanced as well , but without the main technical know-how , because the Americans and Europeans are always known to withhold certain form of key technologies from the countries they sell the weapons to.
Unlike Singapore , in which it gains first hand experience in building naval ships , thats where you can know what kind of platforms you need , what kind of key technologies which you are lacking in etc..
Thats the critical differences , just like in real life , people don't sell you the best thing they got , they only sell you the 2nd best , cause they want to remain superior.
i will be the 1st to laugh if they hit our runways though.
Anyway , its so tough , even if they get the bunker busting bomb , i don't think they can destroy the H.A.S
The only problem facing us is jungle-warfare
Who could've predicted that Israel would nearly wipe out the combined Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies in only six days in 1967? And then after that Egypt rebuilt her forces to successfully cross the river in force to catch Israel by surprise? Or that highly-trained US SpecOps had to be rescued by Malaysian troops in Somalia? Or that illiterate Mujahideen outfought the mighty USSR army? etc etc.... The only lesson here is: Nothing is Impossible. This applies to us as well as "them" - whomever they are. -
Another example of a pencil general. if you have any arty exposure, you;'d realize that nowadays arty sitting around for more than necessary (say 12 mins, happliy firing away) is plump target for everything mto be thrown at it including the kitchen sink.Originally posted by tripwire: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!
Sustained firing rate is closer 2-3 rds per min not your 'burst rate of 6 round minute (even then barrel wear is a problem if resupply is not).
to hit a target half the fun is setting up (if you did the drills you'd know that this is most of the pain), the other half is finding somthing to hit, pulling the trigger is only the climax... -
i am not a general.... and i am merely comparing the relative cost effectiveness, as well as the firepower between MRLS with a similar number of arty using submunition rounds.Originally posted by baer:Another example of a pencil general. if you have any arty exposure, you;'d realize that nowadays arty sitting around for more than necessary (say 12 mins, happliy firing away) is plump target for everything mto be thrown at it including the kitchen sink.
Sustained firing rate is closer 2-3 rds per min not your 'burst rate of 6 round minute (even then barrel wear is a problem if resupply is not).
to hit a target half the fun is setting up (if you did the drills you'd know that this is most of the pain), the other half is finding somthing to hit, pulling the trigger is only the climax...
it goes without saying that arty do not fire from one spot for a continuous 30 minutes (except when all the enemy arty has been drawn out and destroyed), ... i doubt there is sufficient targets to fire on either....
likewise... it goes without saying that MRLS using 90km range rocket CANNOT be used for counter battery fire... you should know why if you are really from arty units. -
Another example of a pencil general.
if you are really from arty units
Urm..., we are all pencil generals and most of us have only served in one branch of SAF - if at all. But since this is a forum for prople like us let's not attack anyone for making theories.
If we need qualifications then there will be precious few opinions.
The only people we should watch out for are those who lie about who they are.
Peace. -
perhaps a better comparison between a MRLS system vs an ARTY system would be based on cost... assuming that firepower per rocket is equivalent or nearly equal that of an arty shell...
the reason why i use 30 minutes was based on my assumption that a rocket MRLS system would take around that long to reload... not really because i think its a good idea for arty to stay in one place for 30 minutes.
however, if we go right down to the devils of the details... the conclusion would still be the same... that is.. buck for buck.. arty gives a far bigger bang vs MRLS.
that is all i intended to say.... -
In my uneducated opinion, the 2 systems are not meant to replace or supersede each other.
Artillery is more precise. Rockets are just meant to just totally saturate an area in a short few seconds. It is a purely offenive weapon which the Russians used to great effect during WW2. Even the Germans were scared. You don't have to factor in reloading time cos the Launcher will shoot, and then scoot somewhere else safe to reload.
Let's say you have a battery of 20 155mm pieces with 3rd burst capability amassed.
At the first burst of fire, the initial 3 round burst gives you a barrage of 3rds x 20tubes in 6 seconds. That's a total of 60 155mm rounds in six seconds. Quite devastating.
In the other scenario if you have a battery of 20 MLRS launchers each with 16 tubes of 180mm rockets.
At one go, you can set off all 16 tubes which gives you a barrage of 16rockets x 20launchers in (estimate) 6 seconds. That's a total of 320 180mm rockets. Even though the MLRS launchers are less accurate but surely the numbers make up the difference. Furthermore, they can just fire one barrage and run. There's no need for reloading. For one howitzer to fire the same amount of ordnance as one MLRS launcher would take 3 minutes at a given published rate of 6 rounds per minute.
Futher note, the MLRS main ttarget would be our airfields to deny us the advantage of our airpower. So if their initial barrage cratered our runways, then they have done their job and cost per shell/rocket cannot calculated this way. If our airfields are out of action we could very well lose the war.
The ASTROS II launcher is capable of firing rockets of different calibers armed with a range of warheads.
The SS-30 rocket, caliber 127mm, can be loaded with 32 rounds per launcher and has a range between 9km and 30km.
The SS-40 rocket, caliber 180mm, can be loaded with 16 rounds per launcher and has a range between 15km and 35km.
The SS-60/SS-80 rocket, caliber 300mm, can be loaded with 4 rounds per launcher and has a range between 20km and 80km. -
From what i know , Malaysia borders sg and thailand , ASTROS will only be used against SG , as for Thailand , its not possible from a theory point of view , cause Southern Thailand is filled with mainly forests and thai malay/muslims , their government are more sympathetic towards people of the same colour/religion.
So , just be ready -
i will love to hear the opinion of our MR. artillery expert BAER on the above... i am sure it will be interesting how an "expert" see the threat of MRLS on singapore and its pros and cons vs an artillery system...Originally posted by tvdog:In my uneducated opinion, the 2 systems are not meant to replace or supersede each other.
Artillery is more precise. Rockets are just meant to just totally saturate an area in a short few seconds. It is a purely offenive weapon which the Russians used to great effect during WW2. Even the Germans were scared. You don't have to factor in reloading time cos the Launcher will shoot, and then scoot somewhere else safe to reload.
Let's say you have a battery of 20 155mm pieces with 3rd burst capability amassed.
At the first burst of fire, the initial 3 round burst gives you a barrage of 3rds x 20tubes in 6 seconds. That's a total of 60 155mm rounds in six seconds. Quite devastating.
In the other scenario if you have a battery of 20 MLRS launchers each with 16 tubes of 180mm rockets.
At one go, you can set off all 16 tubes which gives you a barrage of 16rockets x 20launchers in (estimate) 6 seconds. That's a total of 320 180mm rockets. Even though the MLRS launchers are less accurate but surely the numbers make up the difference. Furthermore, they can just fire one barrage and run. There's no need for reloading. For one howitzer to fire the same amount of ordnance as one MLRS launcher would take 3 minutes at a given published rate of 6 rounds per minute.
Futher note, the MLRS main ttarget would be our airfields to deny us the advantage of our airpower. So if their initial barrage cratered our runways, then they have done their job and cost per shell/rocket cannot calculated this way. If our airfields are out of action we could very well lose the war.
hopefully by the time i come back from work... BAER would have responded... -
Uhhh.... not sure if we can comment much on the age of our seniors. Because we were also once 19 year old platoon sgts and LTAs , leading 18 year olds. In the US army, the average age of a PL sgt was around 28, that of a platoon comdr was around 22. So what can we say?Originally posted by vaxjunior:In a sense, based on my own experiences in NS and Reservist days, this seems to be quite true. In fact, many overseas armies dealing with our leadership are often "awed" by the relative youth of our "generals". This being told to be by an ex LTC himself. How that impacts and affects the overall effectiveness of our military is something quite unique to us as I am not sure if that is the way other armies promote their officers thru the ranks (i.e. Scholars etc.). In a way, the US and UK systems have their own elite class i.e. Sandhurst for e.g. but I am not sure if those are based on pure academic merits.
What do others who are/were officers feel about this i.e. in their dealing with senior leadership in the Bn/Bde/Div or Army levels? -
I'd say that technical-wise,skills-wise,physical fitness-wise and training-wise(proficiency and competence in areas of ops),the individual Singaporean soldier is more than capable of holding his own with most other comparable forces out there.
However,it is our mentality that is our most glaring defect in my opinion,and to repair that one would just have to get creative. -
Care to elaborate more about this defect in our mentality?Originally posted by Sardaukar:I'd say that technical-wise,skills-wise,physical fitness-wise and training-wise(proficiency and competence in areas of ops),the individual Singaporean soldier is more than capable of holding his own with most other comparable forces out there.
However,it is our mentality that is our most glaring defect in my opinion,and to repair that one would just have to get creative. -
i think this defect is a human defect... something that cuts across all race, religion, nationalities and language...Originally posted by tvdog:Care to elaborate more about this defect in our mentality?
its called... SELFISHNESS.... -
Would not it be kind of stupid to even suggest that 20 MLRS together and firing together !!!Originally posted by tvdog:In the other scenario if you have a battery of 20 MLRS launchers each with 16 tubes of 180mm rockets.
At one go, you can set off all 16 tubes which gives you a barrage of 16rockets x 20launchers in (estimate) 6 seconds. That's a total of 320 180mm rockets. Even though the MLRS launchers are less accurate but surely the numbers make up the difference. Furthermore, they can just fire one barrage and run. There's no need for reloading. For one howitzer to fire the same amount of ordnance as one MLRS launcher would take 3 minutes at a given published rate of 6 rounds per minute.
Because it need to big a clearing to do so. Also without arty radar !!! Your grandma also can see where they are !!! -
Do you think you can make your point without using offensive words and mentioning dead relatives?Originally posted by storywolf:Would not it be kind of stupid to even suggest that 20 MLRS together and firing together !!!
Because it need to big a clearing to do so. Also without arty radar !!! Your grandma also can see where they are !!!
The 20 MLRS can fire at the SAME target at the SAME time - but from DIFFERENT locations.
So let's not stake the proof of your superior intellect on this, OK?
Besides, I SAID I'm no expert, and this is a "let's say" scenario. -
Not so much about the age but the interactions you might have with your senior officers e.g. coy cmdr, bde cmdrs or for some even the div cmdrs?? Do they come across as professionals or just wayanging. Of course, there will be your typical super on types and super offs types (law of statistics) but on average how do they compare to other officers? maturity?Originally posted by specfore:Uhhh.... not sure if we can comment much on the age of our seniors. Because we were also once 19 year old platoon sgts and LTAs , leading 18 year olds. In the US army, the average age of a PL sgt was around 28, that of a platoon comdr was around 22. So what can we say? -
waited one whole day liow... arty expert dont know hide inside which hole... still not responded... nebbermind lah... lets wait for a bit longer... getting out of some "hole", sometime takes quite a while...
while we wait for a arty expert.. lets have a bit of a quiz....
if using bomblets per rocket as a measure of a rockets "firepower"... what is the difference in the number of bomblets carried by an SS-60/-80 rocket versus SS-40 rocket vs SAF CARGO arty round?
can anyone tell me how many bomblets are carried per SS-40 rocket? -
OOI!! Topic about weakness in our army leh. Why all the brouhaha on that ASTROS crap?