Hahahaha.... agreed.Originally posted by scabstermooch:In terms of training, the US army is not the one to learn from.
Precisely. The US army has the firepower, the numbers and the technology that we cannot ever match- After all they spend more on defence than the world combined! Training is therefore paramount for the SAF.Originally posted by moca:Hahahaha.... agreed.
We learnt from the Brits and the Israelis. ANd should continue to do so. Both these people always have a tip top army at all times during peace or war.
The performance of American troops were often less than exemplary. And these kinds of "soft, counselling" approach will produce soft soldiers who need to be counselled in the heat of battle instead of obeying commands without question.
One senior American officer who served in both WW2 and Korea wrote that the US soldier after WW2 was too "civilianized" and too concerned about his rights to stand a chance against the hardcore communist soldiers. The result was ill-trained and ill-disciplines US troops suffering heavy casualties and defeat at the hands of third world communist peasant troops.
SAF is soft enough already. It is already softer now than 20 years ago when I entered NSF. To go any softer we may have to stop calling ourselves an army.
Learning from the Brits may be reasonable from their experience in jungle warfare, but it was sheer idiocy learning jungle warfare based on Israeli doctrines.Originally posted by scabstermooch:
In terms of training, the US army is not the one to learn from.[/color]
[/quote]
What kind of training do you have in mind, that we should not learn from the US Army ?
SAF has sent some of our best for the tough Ranger course, and barely a few made it to the top amongst the foreign candidates accepted for the course.
The thread is referring to the Basic Military Training for raw Recruits, and nothing was mentioned about Advanced Training for Army Personnels.
[quote]Originally posted by moca:Hahahaha.... agreed.
We learnt from the Brits and the Israelis. ANd should continue to do so. Both these people always have a tip top army at all times during peace or war.
The performance of American troops were often less than exemplary. And these kinds of "soft, counselling" approach will produce soft soldiers who need to be counselled in the heat of battle instead of obeying commands without question.
One senior American officer who served in both WW2 and Korea wrote that the US soldier after WW2 was too "civilianized" and too concerned about his rights to stand a chance against the hardcore communist soldiers. The result was ill-trained and ill-disciplines US troops suffering heavy casualties and defeat at the hands of third world communist peasant troops.
SAF is soft enough already. It is already softer now than 20 years ago when I entered NSF. To go any softer we may have to stop calling ourselves an army.
Urban legends without a doubt are the root of your quotes (someone heard from someone who learnt from someone else etc etc; never first hand).Originally posted by Atobe:Unfortunately, the Israeli experience in dessert warfare resulted in the early doctrines for jungle warfare had negative effects to our SAF in the early years.
Twenty years ago, punishments meted out to Recruits and also to NSF Soldiers were without any clear nor specific disciplinary guidelines. Some NSF were punished by wearing the steel G.I. helmet without the inner-liner, and performing quick step march, without full battle back pack carried on bare body, with the straps biting into the shoulder.
The punishments could be done at the peak afternoon heat, continued for one hour before dinner, and another round before lights out. At times, such punishments can also be called out in the middle of the night at 02.00hours.
The Korean War fought was lost due to the political restraints placed on General MacArthur by President Truman, and this prevented General MacArthur from conducting a more aggressive military strategy.If MacArthur had his way it would have been WWIII should he have dropped "a couple of nukes on China" as was the final straw which broke the camels back. I think your assertion here is too steeped in 'revisionist history'.
Where got? They helped us set up our armed forces but kept the British regimantal system. They trained our first few batches of recruits on how to behave like soldiers. They trained our initial core of NCO's and officers. They taught us how the basics like how to operate in squads, sections, platoons, company level etc. These apply whether you are in jungle or desert or in HDB estate.Originally posted by Atobe:Learning from the Brits may be reasonable from their experience in jungle warfare, but it was sheer idiocy learning jungle warfare based on Israeli doctrines.
Correction, the Korean War was a stalemate, nobody won or lost.Originally posted by Atobe:The Korean War fought was lost due to the political restraints placed on General MacArthur by President Truman, and this prevented General MacArthur from conducting a more aggressive military strategy.
What rubbish. Please substantiate.Originally posted by Atobe:Unfortunately, the Israeli experience in dessert warfare resulted in the early doctrines for jungle warfare had negative effects to our SAF in the early years.
Have you served your NS yet?Originally posted by Atobe:Twenty years ago, punishments meted out to Recruits and also to NSF Soldiers were without any clear nor specific disciplinary guidelines. Some NSF were punished by wearing the steel G.I. helmet without the inner-liner, and performing quick step march, without full battle back pack carried on bare body, with the straps biting into the shoulder.
The punishments could be done at the peak afternoon heat, continued for one hour before dinner, and another round before lights out. At times, such punishments can also be called out in the middle of the night at 02.00hours.
Was our SAF any tougher twenty years ago with the tough discipline ?
I doubt so, as there were more rebels, with mutiny by the entire Platoon or Company, who simply sat down, and refused to perform any further orders after the continuous punishments that were called at the drop of the hat by any NCO or Officer.
Despite disciplinary guidelines, some NCOs continue to abuse their position by meting out disciplinary punishments based on their own fantasy, instead of following the guidelines prepared.
Do you still think we ought to imitate them? Personally, this looks easy as piss.
All the miles have been marched and all the obstacles left behind. The recruits have arrived at Victory Forge, a three-day field outing in which they apply all that they have learned. This is the true and final test of the recruits' skills and spirit—when they prove that they have what it takes to be a U.S. Army Soldier.
Weekly Schedule
Day 01 Drill and Ceremony Competition
Day 02 Victory Forge: 10 km Foot March
Day 03 Victory Forge: Night Infiltration Course
Day 04 Victory Forge: 15 km Foot March
Day 05 Personal Time and Recovery
Day 06 Personal Time and Recovery
Day 07 Personal Time, Foot March and Chapel Services
All due respects and courtesies, but I'm afraid I don' fully understand what you're saying.Originally posted by |-|05|:Well moca,the US civilian order not to threaten China in anyway caused the US troops to back peddle because no one was facing the Chinese border jus in case they might invade,this even though China threatened to interven. But Korea was both a political and military screw up in my opinion.They should have let garanteed China that the yalu line wld have been kept.heck or even let the Chinese cross the yalu river n link up with the allied troops just to placetate them.Rather then have Gen MacArthur go on and on about invading China.
Most units, after BMT, do not practice much drills unless preparing for a parade. And by then, they are properly treated like men, not recruits.Originally posted by |-|05|:Anyway back on topic,i dont think nicer drill sergeants wld do us any good during BMT....however after that period it shld be fine to have nicer drill sarges.
Originally posted by baer:Ever heard of "No smoke, without fire" ?
Urban legends without a doubt are the root of your quotes (someone heard from someone who learnt from someone else etc etc; never first hand).
I'm not saying it never happened but your examples sound like from DB and Ranger training rather than BMT.
Books are as much legends although done so with the luxury of time in careful research from those with first hand experience.
I recently read a book on the history of sailing ships and one lesson that came accross was that many times the US allowed it military might be reduced to minimal and each time managed to bounce back due to some enlightened individuals.
Big countires like the US can afford to do so because they have the economic and military might to rise from the ashes of past mistakes, can singapore afford this? If allow for a few weak individuals to set the tone, the mental strength and endurance of the whole lot will; be set to the lowest dominator.
The US came fighting back from Pearl Harbour (where they lost practically all their capital ships in a single sunday morning) because of their industrial capacity.
From their attitude of "don't ask, don't tell" they can afford to have a whole division wiped out and still have 9 to 10 more to take its place. Can we afford that price?
Yes, MacArthur would have caused a nuclear confrontation with Soviet Russia, but China did not have any nuclear device during the 1950s; and will Soviet Russia risk getting into a nuclear conflagaration with the USA at that time when their delivery system was - at best - still primitive ?
If MacArthur had his way it would have been WWIII should he have dropped "a couple of nukes on China" as was the final straw which broke the camels back. I think your assertion here is too steeped in 'revisionist history'.
Originally posted by moca:They ? You mean the Israelis ?
Where got? They helped us set up our armed forces but kept the British regimantal system. They trained our first few batches of recruits on how to behave like soldiers. They trained our initial core of NCO's and officers. They taught us how the basics like how to operate in squads, sections, platoons, company level etc. These apply whether you are in jungle or desert or in HDB estate.
Where did you get the information that we learnt jungle fighting from them? Or are you just guessing?
Unfortunately, your statements above is full of contradiction.
Correction, the Korean War was a stalemate, nobody won or lost.
The most significant interference was the Pentagon stopping MacArthur from invading China and using nuclear bombs on China. Which would've resulted in a global nuclear war.
Would invading or bombing China helped win the war. Absolutely not. The Americans could hardly beat the overstretched and ill-equipped PLA in North Korea. Had the Americans entered China, they would be utterly destroyed.
Had they used nuclear weapons, Russia would've have responded in kind. Besides, it would be absolutely immoral to nuclear bomb civilians when the US is not threatened in any way and it was officially in US a "police action" in Korea.
Otherwise, it was the poor tactics of US commanders and individual soldiers that prevented USA in achieving outright victory in both conflicts.
Please read up on at least some books that's not written by red-neck US authors before adopting the US propaganda stance of blaming everything on politics and civilians. If the US was perfoming well no politician would tell the army to stop fighting.
The US Armed Forces didn''t win the fight - period.
If you cannot discern from the information revealed in my posts, then you must be younger than your writing reveal.
Have you served your NS yet?
The topic is about Basic Military Training, and if receiving harsh treatment at the Recruit Stage serves any purpose ?Originally posted by moca:
All due respects and courtesies, but I'm afraid I don' fully understand what you're saying.
That China fought the Americans not because they feared a US invasion was only one of the excuse. But the main reason they fought the Americans was because they wanted to rescue North Korea. China needed North Korea then, as they still do today, as a buffer against a US-dominated South Korea. [/quote]
I am not quite sure where you get your history from but your information do not seem to tally with known and available information.
Was China NOT AFRAID of a US invasion, or is China being altruistic in rescuing North Korea ? Why rescue North Korea if they are not about to be defeated ?
Firstly, the Korean Peninsula was a WW2 prize after defeating Japan, which had historically ruled Korea as a colony since 1905. The Peninsular was subsequently divided between victorious USA and Soviet Russia at the 38th Parallel; with each establishing their own political system and grooming leadership in the respective North and South Korea.
The buffer is standard political propaganda from Communist China, but with a troublesome and ineffective North Korean leadership, this buffer state strategy may prove to be a long term economic and political liability to the NEW Communist China.'China's "line in the sand" was't the Yalu River' ?
PLA soldiers in North Korea were called "volunteers" for propaganda purposes, but this gives you an idea that the PLA engaged the Americans not because they felt threatened, but they were there to aid their NKPA allies.
China's "line in the sand" wasn't the Yalu river, but the 38th parallel. Basically, China is saying that the US has punished NK enough, the NKPA is nearly destroyed, so please go back south of the 38th parallel and we'll call it quits.
Of course this wasn't acceptable to the Americans.
This is a historical understatement in the established history of the Korean Peninsular. You are rewriting and making history.
It is a historical fact that the North Korea made an unprovoked invasion on South Korea in the pre-dawn hours of Sunday 25 June 1950 in a sudden surprise pre-dawn attack to forcibly reunify the Korean Peninsular.
South Korea plight was given immediate recognition for a UN sponsored effort to restore its freedom and bring peace to that region.
After the South Koreans resisted and brought North Korean military adventure to a halt at Pusan, it was under the military leadeship of the US General MacArthur over a UN Force that the sudden invasion from North Korea pushed back across the 38th Parallel.
The North Korean Millitary would have faced complete anihilation if they did not withdraw, after MacArthur made a bold encirclement move with a large scale amphibious landing of his forces at Inchon, and forced a major thrust behind the North Korean lines.
MacArthur continued to push the North Koreans and pursued them to the 38th Parallel; and with the UN approval of rejoining the Korean Peninsular, the UN forces was to push across the 38th Parallel.
All history books had recorded that Communist China was very concerned that the UN Force under US Military Leadership would not stop at the Yalu River.
The Chinese Leadership was correct as many western military leaders saw the necessity of pushing the war into China - as China was one of the two the main supporter of North Korea; and General MacArthur was openly advocating to bring the entire Korean Peninsular under one system, and to squarely face any challenge from Communist efforts to prevent this from happening.
The 38th Parallel was crossed, and the UN force moved to push the North Korean northwards, and inched closer towards the Yalu River.
China entered the conflict on 25 October 2006, when the UN Forces got closer to the Yalu River.Correction - during the initial phase of the war, there were NO significant large formation of US forces stationed on the Korean Peninsular.
US troops in 1950 were a soft bunch. WW2 had just been won. Evil was defeated. No one was expecting trouble. Those who joined the army did so for reasons less than soldierly.
During the initial phase of the war, the US and ROK faced only NKPA (North Korea People's Army) troops.
The NKPA, a less than 3rd rate world power, chased the Americans and allies into a tiny corner at Pusan, the extreme south of South Korea, within a few short months of fighting.
The US finally held this line as there was no where to retreat except into the sea, and was reinforced by sea with [b]recalled veterans of WW2, superior weaponry, and brilliant stroke by MacArthur in flanking the enemy with a coastal hook at Inchon.
New men drafted into US service were given harsh and realistic training similar to WW2 standards.
There were numerous acts of courage and medals handed out on all sides. The Americans, initially soft, later fought extremely well but mainly won due to heavy firepower especially artillery, which the PLA and NKPA later completely lacked.
But if US had used good tactics and fought well consistently, there may not be a North Korea today. [/b]
WW2 had just been won, and the large military forces were being demob - almost in every country that mobilised to face the Axis forces.
When North Korea made a surprise pre-dawn Sunday morning invasion into South Korea, it did so with a large airforce, 150 new tanks, and a massive 135,000 military force; and blitzkreig across a broad front on the entire width of the Korean Peninsular.
The South Korean Military numbered only 65,000 on duty, poorly equipped with no armour or airforce of its own, and with no US troop formation stationed anywhere in South Korea - the nearest being stationed in Japan.How did you come to a conclusion that US superior forces suffered defeat due to poor training and poor strategic military leadership ?
Kim Il Sung had expected a quick victory followed by a popular peasant uprising to support his liberation invasion. His large invasion force overwhelm the Southern Korean capital of Seoul on 28 June 1950 but did not capture the leadership.
To the credit of the South Koreans, they continued their resistance at Pusan, with minimal US military aid and minimal direct US military intervention.
Are you not being contradicting, with the soft Americans fighting well and being courageious subsequently, to win bountiful medals ?
Could the US draft and train their men in time to be put into the Korean Theatre and turn the tide of war against the North Koreans ?
[quote]
Most units, after BMT, do not practice much drills unless preparing for a parade. And by then, they are properly treated like men, not recruits
Please show proof our standing doctrine on jungle warfare is written by the Israelis.Originally posted by Atobe:The British certainly did not train our infantry in the early days of the SAF, so who else do you think organised and wrote the training doctrines for jungle warfare ?
In dessert warfare, the Israelis had the passion to navigate at night, and their standard reactive training when ambushed - was typically, "Enemy LEFT, charge" and firing on the run at the enemy, to throw the surprise back at the enemy with aggressive reaction.
This was a disaster in jungle warfare.
I was talking about the initial first few months of action where the US and its allies lost to the ONLY the NKPA. Are you dumb?Originally posted by Atobe:
"the Pentagon stopped MacArthur" ? Where did you get your history from ?[/quote]
Truman dismissed MacArthur only after he was assured of the full support from the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff).
And from what office do the JCS come from?The Pentagon.
Truman was the axeman but he acted against a national military hero ONLY because he had the blessing of other military chiefs.
"The JCS was increasingly afraid that MacArthur's tactless reaction to such an offensive might allow the situation to grow into a major conflict, perhaps a World War III. Making sure of support within the JCS, which unanimously supported MacArthur's dismissal, Truman fired MacArthur on April 11, 1951."
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/koreanwar/section7.rhtmlOriginally posted by Atobe:
blah blah blah...the US Military was overwhelmed by the human wave attacks from China's massive PLA numbers. (Incidentally, I suppose you know that the War on the Korean Peninsular was not just a US vs North Korea war ? )
Most units, after BMT, do not practice much drills unless preparing for a parade. And by then, they are properly treated like men, not recruits.Some CSM's and regular sgts are still a pain in unit hah.Even though they dont have to be anymore.
Originally posted by Atobe:Of course not.
'China's "line in the sand" was't the Yalu River' ?
Originally posted by Atobe:Stop talking rubbish and show proof that China waited till the allies got close to the Yalu before committing forces.
All history books had recorded that Communist China was very concerned that the UN Force under US Military Leadership would not stop at the Yalu River.
Originally posted by Atobe:Rubbish. UN forces did not get up to the Yalu. The ROK did. And they were attacked by PLA forces who were already on the North Korean side of the Yalu for nearly 2 weeks waiting.
China entered the conflict on 25 October 2006, when the UN Forces got closer to the Yalu River.
Originally posted by Atobe:Oh, I read it in a book written by a colonel who fought in Korea. But in case you are not convinced, here is the same sentiment from a Korean War website:
How did you come to a conclusion that US superior forces suffered defeat due to poor training and poor strategic military leadership ?
Originally posted by Atobe:Exactly, so why not check your facts properly before making an even bigger fool of yourself here.
The topic is about Basic Military Training, ...
I agree. TBoth approaches has its place but to make instructors nicer so that people won't wash out? What a joke.Originally posted by Blockhead:Well, my own personal take is that some abuse is necessary in order to build up some tolerance to pressure and the ability to focus on the task at hand...
I always wondered why my instructors back during BMT were always shouting and screaming, until I went thru my first field exercise. Even in a simulated firefight, it is basically organised chaos at best, with loud noises, smoke and pple yelling their heads off. In a situation like that, one needs to be able to operate to stay alive, i guess, and all that screaming and shouting did help to some extent to help us function a bit better in stressful conditions.
That said, I have to point out that altho we did recieve a fair bit of insults and vulgar language, our instructors were also quick to give us credit for a good job. This, I believe, lies the crux of the issue. The shouting and screaming forced us to work together, but the credit given also built up our confidence and encouraged us to push further. Encouragement and tough words must go together to ensure that troops maintain their morale and learn to fight at the same time.
Should I care arguing in your round about way ?Originally posted by moca:
Please show proof our standing doctrine on jungle warfare is written by the Israelis.
Furthermore, this is SOP for reaction to an ambush where there is no hope of taking cover. Am I right or wrong?
Don't just take one drill and say that this is the ONLY way we should react in ambush. If the enemy is 100 meters away, are you gonna still charge? Of course you say this SOP is a disaster cos you don't understand it properly.[/quote]
If I must grade your reply, I will give you 'A' for arrogance, 'B' for effort, 'C' for contents, 'D' for tolerance, 'E' for humility, 'F' for relevance.
"Show proof of our standing doctrine on jungle warfare is written by the Israelis" ?Firstly, to reply to your question with proof will mean that I am keeping official MINDEF documents while I am a civilian. Secondly, did you read my statement that " The British certainly did not train our infantry in the early days of the SAF, so who else do you think organised and wrote the training doctrines for jungle warfare ?"
In your hurry to defend your imagined hurt pride you missed out the details of my statement and assumed wrongly that I was referring to the Standing Doctrine - (which I will read your mind to mean the current doctrine ?)
The current jungle warfare training is completely different from those taught in the early days of the SAF, when most doctrines were written by the Israelis, with the support of the early SAF Leadership drawn from overaged Civil Servants enlisted into National Service.
It was only in the late 1970s, when the first batch of National Service Officers, maturing to be career soldiers, took up higher posts in the SAF and conducted major reviews to the early doctrines designed by the Israelis.
Have you tried charging into the thicket of the jungle deep in the thickest part of MacRitchie Resevoir, if you have not been in the deep jungle of Brunei ?
Have you ever tried to run in any direction in a charge through the thick jungle environment, without your rifle being tangled or caught or knocked out of your hand by some vine, or branch, or vegetation ?
"Enemy Left, and Charge" was simply stupid in a tangled jungle setting.
At 100m in thick jungle condition, can anyone see where the enemy fire is coming from ? The best reaction is to take cover behind the thickest tree trunk, or earth depression, and watch for enemy movement, or the direction of the hostile gun fire.
[quote]Originally posted by moca:
Truman dismissed MacArthur only after he was assured of the full support from the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff).
And from what office do the JCS come from?
The Pentagon.
Truman was the axeman but he acted against a national military hero ONLY because he had the blessing of other military chiefs.
"The JCS was increasingly afraid that MacArthur's tactless reaction to such an offensive might allow the situation to grow into a major conflict, perhaps a World War III. Making sure of support within the JCS, which unanimously supported MacArthur's dismissal, Truman fired MacArthur on April 11, 1951."
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/koreanwar/section7.rhtml
Originally posted by moca:If my voice can be heard in these prints, you will be deaf stupid to know that I am not so dumb.
I was talking about the initial first few months of action where the US and its allies lost to the ONLY the NKPA. Are you dumb?
Originally posted by moca:Terminology has a way of deceiving the non-thinkers.
Stop dreaming and writing your own version of history. The whole government of USA decided it was wrong to nuke anyone. So live with it.
Korea was a "police action" not even dignified with the term "war" in official US language.
So if it is not a "war", how can you nuke anyone?
If you feel the US has to resort to nuclear weapons to massacre millions of civilians in a "police action" against 2 peasant asian nations, then you need your head examined.
'Rubbish' is more humbling then the arrogance of your tone.Originally posted by moca:'China's "line in the sand" was't the Yalu River' ?
Of course not.
Simple question, did the US cross the Yalu? No.
Did the US even get close to the Yalu? No.
Why?
Only the ROK were allowed to proceed to the Yalu. The US didn't want to provoke war with China.
Sep 30 - ROK troops crossed 38th parallel
Oct 9 - US/UN troops crossed 38th parallel
Oct 14 - PLA crosses Yalu
Oct 19 - Pyongyang captured by allies
Oct 25 - PLA destroy ROK 6th Div
Oct 26 - ROK II Corps reach Yalu
The timetable shows FIVE days after the US crossed the 38th parallel - the "line in the sand" - the PLA crossed the Yalu to commit war on the allies. It is a well-known fact that China had broadcast its warnings to US NOT TO CROSS THE 38th PARALLEL. If only the ROK crossed, they will not intervene. But if US or UN troops crossed, they will respond with force.
Stop talking rubbish and show proof that China waited till the allies got close to the Yalu before committing forces.
[/quote]
The following is the timeline from another historical source on the Korean War 1950-1953 :
1950/09/30 - public warning from China's Chou En-lai to stay away from the Yalu border - called by MacArthur "diplomatic blackmail" - but G-2 reported massive buildup of Communist China Forces (CCF) along northern side of Yalu.
The "line in the sand" as seen from the PRC leadership was the border as marked by the Yalu River, the space between the Yalu River and the 38th Parallel serves only as a buffer, with the 38th Parallel itself serving as a pre-emptive line for the Chinese themselves.
1950/10/8 - MacArthur crossed 38th line into NK at 3:14 am., 12 hours before UN passed resolution calling for a "unified, independent, democratic Korea" and instructing MacArthur to "insure conditions of stability throughout Korea"; Kim Philby passed to the Russians and the Chinese secret information about MacArthur's troop movements; on this same day, U.S. jets attack Soviet air base near Vladivostok as part of the "Secret Air War" between Russia and the U.S. on both sides of the Yalu.
[quote]Originally posted by moca:
Rubbish. UN forces did not get up to the Yalu. The ROK did. And they were attacked by PLA forces who were already on the North Korean side of the Yalu for nearly 2 weeks waiting