Malaysian Navy to get 2 more Lekiu Frigates
-
did i even say ranger?Originally posted by tripwire:well.. our friend campy took on their para 8th ranger regiment leh... looks like we need to send campy to SOF... (just jokeing)
i already posted already....
-
LoL... Ranger or Malaysian Reg ? he heOriginally posted by mhcampboy:did i even say ranger?
i already posted already.... -
RMR are superior to the ranger regiment in malaysia...Originally posted by mhcampboy:not ranger laa...
8th royal malay regiment. -
i always thought the rangers regiment especially from the Sarawak is one of the best in Malaysia ? Maybe RMR is the better i also dun know . Maybe need to do some research liaw. he heOriginally posted by tripwire:RMR are superior to the ranger regiment in malaysia... -
in malaysia, the malay regiment is considered as superior to ranger regiment, the malay regiment gets all the budget... the rangers get what is left over because its a mixed race regiment.Originally posted by BadzMaro:i always thought the rangers regiment especially from the Sarawak is one of the best in Malaysia ? Maybe RMR is the better i also dun know . Maybe need to do some research liaw. he he -
Oh yeah... thats right ~ I remember back in the days when Malays and Chinese had the racial riot , n SG was sending chinese to Johor , Malaysia sent the Ghurkas and the Sarawak rangers to whoop everyone's @ss... malays included .. lol!Originally posted by tripwire:in malaysia, the malay regiment is considered as superior to ranger regiment, the malay regiment gets all the budget... the rangers get what is left over because its a mixed race regiment.
thats what folks in Penang n Johor told me.. the Aunties and uncles back in the days . -
To illustrate a point as to why we shouldn't look down on anyone, least of all the Malaysians:
WW2 Lt Adnan and his troopers of the Malay Regiment, fought the Japs to a standstill. And then fought to the very last man until they ran out of ammo. Compare this to the other Allied troops who fled from the Japs. Lt Adnan and his troopers are Malaysians, so they have a war hero to live up to.
Better to understand their true qualities than to one day be surprised that we had been wrong.
The MAF performed well under fire in peace-keeping missions abroad and I am sure that their troopers are very competent.
The Malaysian press can be very frank when it comes to giving the MAF bad press.
For example, during their recent failed test-firing of a missile, the report was splashed all over the news.
If it was the SAF, there would be probably be news blackout of such failures etc. -
During the Falklands War, the Argentines overestimated their own strength and underestimated the resolve of the Brits.
But this was an extreme case as the Argentines chose to take on one of the best army in the world. It is no embarrassment to lose to such a worthy enemy. The Brits have been experienced in fighting everyone everywhere for the last few centuries.
There was a great gulf between the performance of Argentine regulars and conscripts. Those units that had a great majority of regulars fought very hard and usually to the death. The conscripts gave up easily.
But this is not to say conscripts are useless. In this case it is because deep inside nobody really wanted to die for a stupid island.
During WW2, nearly all the troops were conscripts.
And conscripts make up a large percentage of the IDF, another one of the best armies in the world. -
dont bull lah....Originally posted by moca:To illustrate a point as to why we shouldn't look down on anyone, least of all the Malaysians:
WW2 Lt Adnan and his troopers of the Malay Regiment, fought the Japs to a standstill. And then fought to the very last man until they ran out of ammo. Compare this to the other Allied troops who fled from the Japs. Lt Adnan and his troopers are Malaysians, so they have a war hero to live up to.
Better to understand their true qualities than to one day be surprised that we had been wrong.
The MAF performed well under fire in peace-keeping missions abroad and I am sure that their troopers are very competent.
The Malaysian press can be very frank when it comes to giving the MAF bad press.
For example, during their recent failed test-firing of a missile, the report was splashed all over the news.
If it was the SAF, there would be probably be news blackout of such failures etc.
when 200 aussies fought to the last man in johor against the japs... the japs considered them worthy warriors, like japs under the bushido code of honor...
the japs buried them all and even put up a huge cross as a mark of respect....
what about adnan? he was put in a sack, hang from a tree and bayoneted to death by japs... that should gives you an indication of the amount of respect the japs had for him...
after the war... people likes to make heros out of tragic events... so you get fairy tales of all sought...
victors are portrayed as liberators... angels from heaven... loosers are protrayed as minions from hell that need to be ... xxxx.
that is how history is written....
if you read yesterday newspaper.. you will read that malaysia history book has just taken another twist... they blame the chinese for the may 13, and the idians for the 2001 riot...
why? guess who is the boss in malaysia now? -
AbstractOriginally posted by moca:During the Falklands War, the Argentines overestimated their own strength and underestimated the resolve of the Brits.
But this was an extreme case as the Argentines chose to take on one of the best army in the world. It is no embarrassment to lose to such a worthy enemy. The Brits have been experienced in fighting everyone everywhere for the last few centuries.
There was a great gulf between the performance of Argentine regulars and conscripts. Those units that had a great majority of regulars fought very hard and usually to the death. The conscripts gave up easily.
But this is not to say conscripts are useless. In this case it is because deep inside nobody really wanted to die for a stupid island.
During WW2, nearly all the troops were conscripts.
And conscripts make up a large percentage of the IDF, another one of the best armies in the world.
While the idea is controversial, it is quite possible that, at least under certain circumstances, the fighting effectiveness of a conscript army can equal that of a professional army. For any army, fighting effectiveness is not only influenced by the degree of psychological cohesion among soldiers and officers, but also by the organizational culture of each particular service unit towards the preparation for war and the waging of the conflict itself. The Malvinas (Falklands) War of 1982 demonstrates this very well. In this war, two different types of armies confronted one another: the British army, a professional and all volunteer force, and the Argentine army constituted principally of conscripted soldiers. In this regard, some analysts assert that the British concept was vindicated when a force of British professional soldiers defeated an opposing Argentine force of draftees twice as numerous. Analysts in general have rated the capabilities of the Argentine land forces as poor, although there were exceptions and some units performed very well. These cases deserve to be studied. Notably, the most effective Argentine effort came from some small Army units and one Navy unit, the 5th Marine Battalion. For these units, two primary reasons account for the differences in fighting performance. First, small Army groups fought well because there was cohesion among their components, conscripts, noncommissioned officers, and junior officers, especially by the attitude of the latter. Secondly, in the case of the Marine battalion, its performance was the product not only of good training, but also of the different institutional approach to waging war that the Argentine Navy employed. These, in turn, improved cohesion. By focusing upon these units and their effectiveness, a rather new picture of the Malvinas War comes to light that differs quite substantially from those drawn in the immediate aftermath of the war itself. It should also make us rethink the "lessons" of the war, including those that surround the professionals versus conscripts controversy.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/cem/doctra/271.html -
its a nice read... please read and enjoy....Originally posted by tripwire:Abstract
While the idea is controversial, it is quite possible that, at least under certain circumstances, the fighting effectiveness of a conscript army can equal that of a professional army. For any army, fighting effectiveness is not only influenced by the degree of psychological cohesion among soldiers and officers, but also by the organizational culture of each particular service unit towards the preparation for war and the waging of the conflict itself. The Malvinas (Falklands) War of 1982 demonstrates this very well. In this war, two different types of armies confronted one another: the British army, a professional and all volunteer force, and the Argentine army constituted principally of conscripted soldiers. In this regard, some analysts assert that the British concept was vindicated when a force of British professional soldiers defeated an opposing Argentine force of draftees twice as numerous. Analysts in general have rated the capabilities of the Argentine land forces as poor, although there were exceptions and some units performed very well. These cases deserve to be studied. Notably, the most effective Argentine effort came from some small Army units and one Navy unit, the 5th Marine Battalion. For these units, two primary reasons account for the differences in fighting performance. First, small Army groups fought well because there was cohesion among their components, conscripts, noncommissioned officers, and junior officers, especially by the attitude of the latter. Secondly, in the case of the Marine battalion, its performance was the product not only of good training, but also of the different institutional approach to waging war that the Argentine Navy employed. These, in turn, improved cohesion. By focusing upon these units and their effectiveness, a rather new picture of the Malvinas War comes to light that differs quite substantially from those drawn in the immediate aftermath of the war itself. It should also make us rethink the "lessons" of the war, including those that surround the professionals versus conscripts controversy.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/cem/doctra/271.html
here is a small excerpt.Stone, rock, pure stone, deadly. Up higher it was easy because of the peat, but right away the stone came up. and right there, with a shitty little shovel, i started to dig. If it took me two and half days to dig my little foxhole, how could the english build an aluminum airstrip with hangars and everything in two and half-hours? something went wrong.... They had machines, they had everything. I dont know where they got them. So I wondered, how was I going to win the war with my little shovel?
argentinian conscript walter donado (C company of the 25th IR) -
wahhh...malaysia just issued a letter of intent for two lousy British designed light frigates, the nuts here go bonkers.
All in, the RMN currently has four light frigates whilst RSN has six full fledged modern frigages. Look at the geography and tell me who's top heavy. -
BTW, the 8 RMR is just another standard infantry battalion.
Not so with the 8 RRR.
If any of u here has good marks for the 8 RMR, the 8 RRR could easily tops that.
Originally the RMR were standard infantry units whilst the RRR were light infantry. Now some of them has been transformed into para or mechanised. including the rangers. -
Your comparison here is mainly by numbers, you have to look deeper into the capababilities, numbers have an influence, but capababilities play more importance...Originally posted by ferryman2393:wahhh...malaysia just issued a letter of intent for two lousy British designed light frigates, the nuts here go bonkers.
All in, the RMN currently has four light frigates whilst RSN has six full fledged modern frigages. Look at the geography and tell me who's top heavy. -
capababilities play more importance
true. the sensors and harpoons on those formidables can reach and touch the lekius and kasturis without getting their hands wet.
The perdanas and other fast attack crafts are desserts for the six formidables. -
of course we have good mark for RMR...Originally posted by ferryman2393:BTW, the 8 RMR is just another standard infantry battalion.
Not so with the 8 RRR.
If any of u here has good marks for the 8 RMR, the 8 RRR could easily tops that.
Originally the RMR were standard infantry units whilst the RRR were light infantry. Now some of them has been transformed into para or mechanised. including the rangers.
afterall... we have always been awed by the achievements of MAF... such as...
1. crushing the malayan communist party.
2. defeated the indonesia armed forces during konfronatsi.
3. saving the entire american rangers in mogadishu.
4. bully off the bruneian navy over contested water.
5. knock into the indonesian navy ship over contested water.
6. challenging PRC over sprately island.
7. air-lifted a MBT all the way from europe for national day.
8. para jump over the north pole.
9. climb mount everrest.
10. shot down australian F-18 hornet.
11. threaten to poison singapore water.
12. chopped down a christian cross in serbia.
see... such achievements...
all SAF have to show on the other hand are stupid ISOXXXXX and god know what TV commercial including one that showed an officer (which is actually a australian actor) and wayang everyday about how capable SAF is. -
lol... true...Originally posted by tripwire:of course we have good mark for RMR...
afterall... we have always been awed by the achievements of MAF... such as...
1. crushing the malayan communist party.
2. defeated the indonesia armed forces during konfronatsi.
3. saving the entire american rangers in mogadishu.
4. bully off the bruneian navy over contested water.
5. knock into the indonesian navy ship over contested water.
6. challenging PRC over sprately island.
7. air-lifted a MBT all the way from europe for national day.
8. para jump over the north pole.
9. climb mount everrest.
10. shot down australian F-18 hornet.
11. threaten to poison singapore water.
12. chopped down a christian cross in serbia.
see... such achievements...
all SAF have to show on the other hand are stupid ISOXXXXX and god know what TV commercial including one that showed an officer (which is actually a australian actor) and wayang everyday about how capable SAF is. but still... lol! I think u forgot about the Sabah pirates incident where they overkilled the enemy with thier cannons from sea. he he~ -
and i just saw him @ Clarke Quay last thursday night.Originally posted by tripwire:COA? the current COA or previous one?
the current one is this guy...
His car parked outside Liang court along Clarke Quay with a 1SG as his chauffeur :
Not clear pic as its nighttime and my phone's night cam sux. But can make out the 2 stars on the bonnet. -
What the fu.ck are you talking about?Originally posted by tripwire:dont bull lah...
....
victors are portrayed as liberators... angels from heaven... loosers are protrayed as minions from hell that need to be ... xxxx.
that is how history is written....
if you read yesterday newspaper.. you will read that malaysia history book has just taken another twist... they blame the chinese for the may 13, and the idians for the 2001 riot...
why? guess who is the boss in malaysia now? -
Not surprising. I saw CDF car outside a KTV lounge at Tjg Pgr before. With his driver wearing a number 3 waiting around. And the time is around midnight already. Poor driver.Originally posted by Moonstriker:and i just saw him @ Clarke Quay last thursday night.
His car parked outside Liang court along Clarke Quay with a 1SG as his chauffeur :
Not clear pic as its nighttime and my phone's night cam sux. But can make out the 2 stars on the bonnet. -
dont worry, our 1st commando, 1st n 3th Guard will eat the Horse country rangers for breakfast.
-
Lt Adnan held off the Japanese attacking his position for many days. Nearby British or Aussie troops refused to fire in support of his position in order to conserve ammo. Probably becos they didn't want to waste ammo in defense of "native" troops.
Lt Adnan was also sharp enough to recognise that an approaching party dressed in Allied uniforms were in fact Japanese troops and fired on them.
By the time the Japanese overran Lt Adnan's position, there were only a few of them left alive and they were all out of ammo.
The Japanese slaughtered them in anger. -
ORLY! he he...Originally posted by auckland city:dont worry, our 1st commando, 1st n 3th Guard will eat the Horse country rangers for breakfast. -
The way you compare the fighting strength of a force is wrong, you must see want they are train for and what type of training.Originally posted by spencer99:At the end of the day, the MAF is a professional force. The SAF (esp the Army) is a conscript army.
in the 1982 falklands, a smaller professional British Army defeated a larger conscript Argentine Army.
in the event of a confrontation, I think the SAF is at a disadvantage man for man. that is why we invest so much in hi-tech weaponary and C3I.
So what if they are army are professional full time soldiers ? If they spend their time camping here and there like boy scouts, we are not comparing who build the nicer tents or cook outdoor better !!! -
of course we have good mark for RMR...
really? i thought the SAF could eat the MAF for breakfast.
let alone the RMR.