Singapore 6 Day War?
-
Air superiority is not enough to win wars.
MAF vs SAF is still gonna be very much a ground war and we'll be fighting it in their turf - if we are lucky - but amidst a hostile population.
And the size of Johore, alone is quite a handful, don't talk about the rest of the country.
The WW2 battle-hardenedJapanese took 55 days to fight its way down the Peninsula to Singapore against an enemy less well-armed than the MAF is today.
Will SAF be able to do it in a week? -
I'm not anonymous.Originally posted by moca:Someone said we would never have to fight KL.
I am painting the scenario why this may not be our choice.
Well, maybe I over-generalised about not having to fight KL, but I was just saying that it would be less likely we would fight KL because extremist Islam is unlikely to take over as the ruling ideology of MY.
We've got to make a clear distinction between Islamisation in the context of greater religiosity, and the militant strain of Islam, hijacked for selfish political goals or fight for independance.
I think we should be on the lookout for Wahhabism man.. -
ha ha ha wow you wrote like a career forum reply person. In any case i think you read too much into this. There has been a lot of assumption to make up a 6 days war. Usually when i am in a situation full of unknown, I would prefer to consider what if rather than simplified the know.
Yea. While we are at it, bring in the entire SEA as well plus all the major powers. But I suppose it is as equally reasonable to assume intervention by the US and perhaps other major powers since you think in your `what if' scenario that the Indons would simply drop whatever they are doing and merrily join a war. -
MAF vs SAF is still gonna be very much a ground war and we'll be fighting it in their turf - if we are lucky - but amidst a hostile population.
The circumstances of today`s conflicts and equipment are totally different as compared to WW2. Today`s wars are run faster. I think speed is a chief criterion as to how the SAF will conduct her wars. That is to fight before the enemy is ready.
And the size of Johore, alone is quite a handful, don't talk about the rest of the country.
The WW2 battle-hardenedJapanese took 55 days to fight its way down the Peninsula to Singapore against an enemy less well-armed than the MAF is today.
Will SAF be able to do it in a week?
Johor is very small which makes us every smaller. Smaller forces have taken territories larger than the size of Johor. However, the fighting will be rather concentrated and movement of forces easier to discern which is a benefit to the party with superior aerial assets. Again, the SAF is expected to move in first and that is a reasonal proposition since the MAF is scattered througout the peninsula and east Malaysia. There is no way they can beat the SAF where mobilization is concerned. We will be throwing the first punches at the mere sign of war. Realistically, I doubt Singapore will wait when the signs are clear.
You have brought up an interesting point. Will the populace be hostile? Or will some welcome us or take a neutral stance. Malaysia has a hetrogenous population after all. -
Of course, one must factor in the network centric warfare that the SAF is trying to implement as well, something that currently has no counterpart in the region.
I wonder how it will pan out.
That said, if you can't outfight your opponent with conventional tatics, you can always see before he sees, hear before he hears, think before he thinks, and act before he acts.
Currently we see that network centric warfare has paid off quite well in Iraq, even if it's in its infancy. But the Allies were able to cut down on a lot of their losses and out think their opponents by being able to pass information around as quickly as possible.
So that's another thing to factor in as well. -
u guys can view the war games few years back between MY n SG.
But all in all.. wont be a 6 day war.. more like.. dragged on for like ages. Then UN will come n draw out a buffer zone. Then MY will have lots of Jihadist explosve terrorists chionging by roads , or swimming in with sampan to suicide attack ur population.
Then it will be dubbed the most ridiculous n wasteful war in the history of mankind. -
if that happen there would be less possibality of war with them because they would definately eradicate the radical first, either by conducting another COIN or civil war. Either way they will win as they did with the comunist. Come to think of it we probably will came and help them fighting the radical instead of fighting them.
That all depends on how things turn out, if (touch wood) the radials came in by popular vote, it would not be an insurgency, but rather a fully fledged regime with all the military assets we are talking here, similar to the Iranian revolution. And of course that would be the nightmare scenario that we are considering for the sake of an argument here.
It is highly unlikely, but the elements are there for such a thing to be possible.there were a lot of artillery and from my experience with their army they know how to use it and utillies the geographical advantage to evade our jet. The serbs have done that with the american. and i have confirmation that MAF change their doctrine when they learned how the serbs spoof allied air superiority.
True, but then again it will be an issue of spoofing tactics versus detection technology. It depends on how you play your cards when it comes to deciding what targets to plink. The Allies in Serbia simply plinked anything that was of interest to them, even if it was a decoy or not, as per their SOP.
But the difference now is that surveillance technology has also taken a great leap forward. The heavy utilization of long-endurance UAVs will certainly play a large part in this battle to sort out which targets are which. If an arty piece or tank does not move for a long period of time or appears way out of known support lines, suspicions are certainly raised if they are legit or not.
Once again itÂ’s an issue of technology versus familiarity with terrain. The Serbs were mostly unable to get off their shots and hence their focus was on hiding and setting decoys, but the Malaysians certainly donÂ’t have this luxury, and they have to do plenty of high-signature things (like firing guns) that give us plenty of opportunity to return the favour.
That said, a more modern example of familiarity with terrain versus technology arises in the fight against the insurgency in Iraq. While the insurgents are able to use their familiarity with the terrain to launch ambushes and IED attacks against American troops, however the Americans are countering this by their heavy use of UAVs to monitor the area virtually 24/7 to catch insurgents in the act of setting up IEDs and ambushesÂ… and catching a fair number of them (very few of the IED planting attempts result in a attack on the Yanks, with the rest being caught, killed or disarmed in the process).
Both sides are getting in their shots, but neither really have the upper hand (though in terms of bodycount the insurgents are suffering badly but they are able to keep up the attacks, which is a success in itself). Thought recently it seems that the insurgents have shifted targets to civilians as opposed to troops, probably because of the discouraging kill ratio.
So once again, itÂ’s how you play your cards. If you donÂ’t have terrain you can use technology and tactics to overcome it and vice versa.ive seen their training. Lets just keep the battle in the air ok.
The Malaysian Army is not soft, given they are made out of regularsÂ… however itÂ’s another thing to say the SAF units are unable to put up a decent fight in response (unless you believe the Malay predator race theory being floated on some Malaysian forums).
It is inevitable that there will be a clash on the ground, hence the SAFÂ’s idea would be to bank on air superiority and technology as a force multiplier while the MAF will naturally look to the land for their solutions.
Of course itÂ’s one thing to have competent men, but a conventional war is also fought on other levels such as supplies and communications. If these are taken out, no matter how competent the grunt is heÂ’s already fighting at a serious disadvantage. I suspect the SAF is aiming for those things, rather then a simple force-on-force match up.
The Malaysian problem is that they will have an issue replacing their losses and keeping in quality once they start to mount, while the SAF have less of an issue in quality (given we are not all that great). But then again as it stands I doubt both sides are really battle-tested. Our boys could give the other armies a hard time when it comes down to regional exercises and hence there is no reason to suspect that they lack the proper abilities to stick to a fight.
That said, our conscripts, despite all their misgivings, are a tad different from the Argentinean conscripts they stuffed on the Falklands to face the British Marines.
ItÂ’s not our grunts IÂ’m worried aboutÂ… itÂ’s our scholar generals who know jack about combat that might end up leading our men in battle. -
try to read some of their so called 'quick march test' competition or the brigade level 'offroad challenge', you can see that they able to march the entire brigade in two days all the way from kelantan to johor with minimal damage to their equipment..... inside the cover of the jungle.
In peacetime they did this operation unopposed, in wartime itÂ’s another thing. When under arty fire and enemy air superiority things will be greatly complicated then the peacetime exercise where you lose no personnel, supplies and equipment.
Also, getting equipment there is one thingÂ… a whole brigade of troops moving even under the jungle canopy is hardly stealthy at all and represent a rather large signature to IR sensors. And thereÂ’s no way you can drive tanks undetected even if in the jungle if the enemy has his thermal eyes on you, the engines are virtual heat beacons. The whole movement itself can become a battle.
Of course thereÂ’s another questionÂ… when you get to Johor what then? Do you prepare defences or engage in an open conventional assault against the SAF? (if they have already taken over Johor). In the open conventional assault scenario I suspect the SAF will have the upper hand.
Not that the MAF shouldnÂ’t march troops south ASAP, but I think the whole operation is not without itÂ’s possible foils and problems.
Of course this assumes a zero-hour exploit by the SAF where they manage to get attack on the opening of hostilities. Logically speaking this is not the mostly likely scenario and the MAF would have already placed a healthy number of troops, heavy units, and arty pieces in Johor in the event of bad tensions, and the jungle marches after these are to reinforce the front.if we learned enough geography we will know that its a defender heaven. Too many small hills and dense secondary jungle a perfect ambush country.... and seing the way our SAF climb hills during an attack.....
I think if the SAF has to be bogged down in bitter hill-to-hill fighting then things have already gone greatly wrong. More likely they will attempt to control important lanes of transport and urban centres, and the battles will be decided there rather then in the jungles ala. Vietnam. And in an urban setting our boys are on a more level playing field, though the fighting might be hellish as well.
I suspect we will avoid jungle combat as and when we canÂ… while the MAF will press the green for cover from technological advantage as well as to press their own advantage to try to launch their own attacks. -
Agree wholeheartedly my main man.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:ItÂ’s not our grunts IÂ’m worried aboutÂ… itÂ’s our scholar generals who know jack about combat that might end up leading our men in battle. -
Actually, if we don't cross the strait and instead use arty fire and counter battery fire to hold them off, the entire war will be reduced to a naval and air battle. Moreover, what we can do is make it difficult for them to deploy landing craft and well, it will be ultimately a stalemate.Originally posted by moca:Air superiority is not enough to win wars.
MAF vs SAF is still gonna be very much a ground war and we'll be fighting it in their turf - if we are lucky - but amidst a hostile population.
And the size of Johore, alone is quite a handful, don't talk about the rest of the country.
The WW2 battle-hardenedJapanese took 55 days to fight its way down the Peninsula to Singapore against an enemy less well-armed than the MAF is today.
Will SAF be able to do it in a week? -
Given the situation, Indon would support My than Sing. From Historical ethnic ties, religion, n political.Originally posted by Thrall79:Yea. While we are at it, bring in the entire SEA as well plus all the major powers. But I suppose it is as equally reasonable to assume intervention by the US and perhaps other major powers since you think in your `what if' scenario that the Indons would simply drop whatever they are doing and merrily join a war.
And if we are going up north that is an assumption u cannot likely discredit because u may not have the time to turn around your asset to counter any southern aggression.
and i believe when it comes to defending Singapore. Unforunately, i think we will be defending it alone. (we might encounter a grave concern by the UNSC)
U cannot rely on US. Its domestics pressure may not agreed to mount an assistant. Instead a political settlment. -
U think there will be help from uncle sam? Singapore is a trading lane, another regime can offer the same condition. free port, no tax.Originally posted by aiglosicicle:if any war were to break out i'm pretty confident singapore will acheive total air superiority very quickly. also, i think we should also consider the fact that nations such as the US will intervene to help us as singapore is a very important trading partner to many great nations around the world. -
Your battlion commander? Is he a regular or reservist as well?Originally posted by evq:To start a war bet MY & SG is as simple as Turning of the water tap off.
We still have two Water Treaty which end in 2011 & 2061. IRRC.
Can our top commanders stay calm in the event of war? Can they really lead?
People reacts differently when the 1st bullet flys pass.
What if SAF's plan did not go on as smoothly as they've expect? High casualties in the opening days? Can our Commanders still keep their composure & think properly? Or just send in more men blindly & get them killed?
Why i asked these?
Becos i've such Commander in my reservist unit.
During our excerise(luckily only an excerise), When the fighting starts, & one of our defensive post was overrun, he just ordered all men from other posts to reinforce, all of us were sent directly into the fighting zone w/o proper identify the positions of our enemies. One by one, each section & platoon, were KIA.
Meanwhile leaving the other flanks wide open for enemy to just walk into the command post. My commander was lost after 1/3 of his men is KIA, he just stare blindly & didnt know what to do.
To note: My section was ordered to charge in, w/o knowing where the enemies were, imagine my entire section proned down just infront of the enemy's front line.. hahaha... 'killed' instantly w/o firing a shot. Same goes to other most other sections.
We may have the best equipments, but are we prepared mentally & are our commanders competent? None of them have real combat experience & seen his men died. The sight of war may just scare the hell out of some of them.
This really worry me a lot. -
Actually, if we don't cross the strait and instead use arty fire and counter battery fire to hold them off, the entire war will be reduced to a naval and air battle. Moreover, what we can do is make it difficult for them to deploy landing craft and well, it will be ultimately a stalemate.
I don't think it will be a stalemate... we could very well lose!
Which nation do you think has more land to absorb arty rounds?
Which nation has all of it's important assets within arty range?
This is exactly the kind of battle we should not fight.
I think the hold them off and exchange shells ideas isn't too cool, in my opinion. -
Singapore CANNOT afford to take arty hits all day long. SAF must push up for more strategic depth. Why defend at the last possible point when we can push up and hold them further up?
Our size is a good and bad thing for us. Major plus is that we will have the edge is mobilisation.
bad thing is we are small and concentrated. Hence we need to move our forces further up north to spread out our troops.
Right now Im very worried about the Thai south and Msia North regions. Its a hotpot of radical islamists. I fear the very day of a regime change in msia.
If we are ever to fight the radicals together with the msian army, the thais might just lend a helping hand by rubbing narathiwat as well. -
I was minding my own business until I was awakened by the interesting discussion here. Please pardon my intrusion.....only transit boleh?
OK- You know, the KTM railway line ( Malaysian territory) cuts directly through a particular key Ministry's main gate......mmmm......I wonder at the implications ............. mmmmm.....your General didn't shave this morning......mmmm....
''
That's how close the two countries are... in terms of physical proximity!
Peace, brudder...... -
Sure, but do you think we can hold Johor for long?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I don't think it will be a stalemate... we could very well lose!
Which nation do you think has more land to absorb arty rounds?
Which nation has all of it's important assets within arty range?
This is exactly the kind of battle we should not fight.
I think the hold them off and exchange shells ideas isn't too cool, in my opinion. -
Think again. What basis have you got to say that the Indons would support you on these 3 reasons? They went to war with Malaysia not too long ago. They are very much prepared to have you ripped apart over Simpadan. It is completey naive to think countries will go war for these reasons. Further, you have neither a binding treaty not alliance. National interests are paramount. However, I do not discount the fact that ultra-radicals may be more than interested in using this as a clarion call to promote thier own goals.
Given the situation, Indon would support My than Sing. From Historical ethnic ties, religion, n political.
What kind of a military effort will it be to leave your backs exposed while fighting a war? It is completely within the realm of necessity that we will ensure that our backs are protected. Of course, the reality is that there is no way the Indons can surge troops up to anyone`s borders for a long time. They have a hard time as it is keeping the entire archipelago singing to the same tune. Let alone get into a war that does not involve them and would ruin thier fragile economy.
And if we are going up north that is an assumption u cannot likely discredit because u may not have the time to turn around your asset to counter any southern aggression.
At the outset, the entire basis of the SAF is to defend Singapore alone. And force a settlement by crushing the MAF which they can do just by comparing/looking at our current assets. However, external powers(especially the US) would not simply sit still and watch a key node in the global financial and economic system be taken by a bunch of radical islamists. The costs are too high. The US have always taken the fight to places where it matters in spite of domestic pressures. The US and other major powers will never risk Singapore falling and SEA turning into an radical Islamic caliphate. [/quote]
and i believe when it comes to defending Singapore. Unforunately, i think we will be defending it alone. (we might encounter a grave concern by the UNSC)
U cannot rely on US. Its domestics pressure may not agreed to mount an assistant. Instead a political settlment. -
U think there will be help from uncle sam? Singapore is a trading lane, another regime can offer the same condition. free port, no tax.
And be held ransom by a warmongering and possibly radical bunch of tin-pot Islamic terrorists? Never..
Come on. What kind of innane government will give freebies like that indefinitely? Especially if you are sitting on a pot of gold.
I can tell you one thing. If Singapore is managed by the corrupt and inefficient Malaysian government, the situation would be no different than Malaysia not having Singapore at all. Just look at how they are managing the Iskandar project. -
I was minding my own business until I was awakened by the interesting discussion here. Please pardon my intrusion.....only transit boleh?
They could have built Mindef elsewhere. Of course, they know what they are doing and this is not an issue.
OK- You know, the KTM railway line ( Malaysian territory) cuts directly through a particular key Ministry's main gate......mmmm......I wonder at the implications ............. mmmmm.....your General didn't shave this morning......mmmm....
Just put a block of stone in between the rails and problem solved. Realistically, the railway will be gone at the onset of any conflict(Singapore would simply annex the land) and Singapore will build MRT tracks over them. -
I've thought about it too... but i'm thinking SAF is not dumb, they know they have this veru obvious threat...so I'm sure they have something done to 'counter' it.Originally posted by idwar:I was minding my own business until I was awakened by the interesting discussion here. Please pardon my intrusion.....only transit boleh?
OK- You know, the KTM railway line ( Malaysian territory) cuts directly through a particular key Ministry's main gate......mmmm......I wonder at the implications ............. mmmmm.....your General didn't shave this morning......mmmm....
''
That's how close the two countries are... in terms of physical proximity!
Peace, brudder......
If not, just imagine, middle of the nite, some MAF Kommandos ( or however you call their elite forces) jumps out from a train, sneak into MINDEF and burn Gombak hill.
There goes our National Security. A threat i'm sure SAF should have ( i hope) thought of countering.
IN any case, pls pray for no war. Our economy, our lives will be hard and dire should we plunge ourselves into a war of any kind.
peace out -
Think again. What basis have you got to say that the Indons would support you on these 3 reasons? They went to war with Malaysia not too long ago. They are very much prepared to have you ripped apart over Simpadan. It is completey naive to think countries will go war for these reasons. Further, you have neither a binding treaty not alliance. National interests are paramount. However, I do not discount the fact that ultra-radicals may be more than interested in using this as a clarion call to promote thier own goals.Originally posted by Thrall79:
if i recall correctly indonesia confrontation having a "man" justified by historical ethnic claims thru the entire region. If the national interest converge they will work together and if this case it is singapore that move up North. It is against Indo national interest to see Singapore expand beyong its border.
The case of Indo parachute on our national day into JB was an example of intervene in case of emegency. (my friend from SAR unit was call up that morning) and send a message to curtain nationalism in Singapore.
In any case i think Singapore would only take such a drastics action if it is national security and that would be because both nations become ultra radical as you mention. -
if i recall correctly indonesia confrontation having a "man" justified by historical ethnic claims thru the entire region. If the national interest converge they will work together and if this case it is singapore that move up North. It is against Indo national interest to see Singapore expand beyong its border.
Now that we have established that `national interests' determine the action of nations, we can now determine if it`s in Indonesian national interests to intervene in a conflict between Singapore and Malaysia.
Can we now say it is against Indonesian national interests too see Malaysia take Singapore? Hence, they will actually fight for Singapore. They certainly have no problem going to war with Malaysia( same religion, politics, race, etc) during the `Konfrontation'. Tens of thousands(including paliamentarians) wanted a new `Krontatation' after simpidan. In fact, one even made a comment recently about shooting Malaysians every now and then.
Of course, we should not forget basic national interests like the lives of fellow countrymen, economic prosperity, etc.
Countries will weigh all these considerations first before plunging into a war; even the US does it.
The final question we must ask is this; Do indonesians see themselves as malaysians? Answer: No. Hence, the possibility of an indonesian intervention is remote.
I reckon you are talking about a military exercise. Dozens of exercises are conducted each year by many countries around the world. Some of which comes with political messages. Many countries use these exercises to thier own advantage in underlining political messages but it does not determine thier actual actions during a real event. The FPDA, for example, holds numerous exercises each year. Who is the target? Does it mean the Australians, Brits and Kiwis will hop over to help Malaysia in an event of war with Indonesia? Answer : No.
The case of Indo parachute on our national day into JB was an example of intervene in case of emegency. (my friend from SAR unit was call up that morning) and send a message to curtain nationalism in Singapore.
Singapore has numerous exercises with our Indonesian counterparts each year. Can I say Indonesia would come to our aid in an event of a war?
War is a totally different thing as compared political statements of solidarity, unity, etc. Most countries will not go to war unless thier survivability is at stake. War comes with enormous economic, financial and human costs. The exception being major powers and developed nations like the US which has the ability to absorb the costs of wars.
We have not much issues with the Indons. The corrupt Malaysians are a dfferent story. Water could be a reason. Anyway, we reserve the ability to give them a good arse-whacking if they try to be funny. This kindda of thing affects pride; thiers. Especially since Singapore is much smaller.
In any case i think Singapore would only take such a drastics action if it is national security and that would be because both nations become ultra radical as you mention. -
Winning a war is more political then it is anything else.We dont have to thrash the MAF or die tryinig just to win it.
And they war will be over within a week like it or not there will be a winner and there will be a loser....heck there might be two winners or two losers.
At the end of the day......what price for peace?What price will be paid before the war becomes to costly for either side? We win by making the enemy reach that cost before we reach our's. -
aiyah...we almost forgot about this. But in our plan, in case of war, we actually would be using the train to bring one battalion of soldiers straight through to Malacca (or KL, can't remember) and take control of all the railways activities along the way (in Malaysian territory) ....this is probable done while our Generals are shaving....s h i t! I hate it when we go to war and the general got time to shave.Originally posted by idwar:I was minding my own business until I was awakened by the interesting discussion here. Please pardon my intrusion.....only transit boleh?
OK- You know, the KTM railway line ( Malaysian territory) cuts directly through a particular key Ministry's main gate......mmmm......I wonder at the implications ............. mmmmm.....your General didn't shave this morning......mmmm....
''
That's how close the two countries are... in terms of physical proximity!
Peace, brudder......
Peace, brudder, peace.