Finally an instructor speaks up.
Still, someone care to explain the advantages of Locker PT that helps enhances the readiness of this 3G army?
Originally posted by Shotgun:Finally an instructor speaks up.
Still, someone care to explain the advantages of Locker PT that helps enhances the readiness of this 3G army?
Exactly! When I was an instructor I found the whole notion of Locker PT stupid... not to mention counterproductive in terms of actually teaching your recruits things that will save them in war.
Are you going to bring your locker outfield? Going to use it as mobile cover during fire and movement? Going to casevac your locker?
I rather declare this or that guy shot, and ask his section to casevac him to this or that location. Not only is it siong, it is a more realistic reflection of what they going to face in the battlefield as well as how to work together as a team.
Another useful exercise would be to train them to "everything in, everything out" with their fieldpack. It trains them to pack and locate their equipment in quick time which would be a far better battlefield skill, not to mention aid them in discipline as well.
We did quite a bit of that things on them thou... so no, I think their training is not guniang... it just wisened up a lot since the old days where anything goes. Seriously, some old methods just have to go and be replaced with more productive ones.
Want to train soldier, must use brain as well.
I train with NSF and NS men during my yearly ICT. You can see the difference between the "Old Birds" and "New Birds". Frankly those men who went to National Service in the 80's and early 90's (well any thing earlier ORD loh) are very much tougher and more hands-on in the field. Frankly, I will go to war with these bunch any day.
Yes, you might say NSF men not so experience etc. But I really really feel that they are really a "kuniang" bunch. I saw a scout trying to hammer a demo hook to secure a colour panel on a grass field with this tinny whinny hammer. I practically snatch it off his hand and stomp the demo hook into the ground and shouted "WTF are you doing soldier!!!!" ... guess wat? The damn kid had tears in his eyes.
This is what we old timers are saying about putting back the "TOUGHNESS" in national service.
A fellow NSF got sent to hospital once during fire drill.
Cos my boss screwed him.
Times have changed. We cannot relate or empathize with the deprivations in life that our forefathers faced in first-half of last century. We were brought up in the plentiful post-war era. So, for every “softie” that we have in our armed forces, please expect to find at least a matching number of “softies” in our potential aggressor(s)’ armed forces. (Please do not digress into a comparison about the standard of soldiering that conscript armed forces produced vs. professional armed forces in this thread. Empirical evidence has shown that both models produce effective soldiers. Do start a new topic thread if you have to).
Since we do not face a current conventional threat to our sovereignty, our society cannot tolerate what it perceives as hazing or bullying in our armed forces. For example, South Korea is technically still at war with North Korea; hence hazing is accepted by their society in general or “institutionalized” into the armed forces. Thailand has their regular share of violent border conflicts. Indonesia was fighting insurgencies awhile back. We simply do not have the context to condone hazing at present time. In any case, most of our junior specialists are NS personnel. They do not have more “real” soldiering experiences than their subordinates. Hence, there is less “authority” for them to haze their subordinates. Of course, when we have to go to war at short notice, I suspect hazing of new recruits/trainees will be tolerated since we have to convert them into “instant” soldiers to replace combat losses and prepare them for prolonged combat stress in modern battlefield. In a real op, enemy forces will “bully” our soldiers with live-rounds at the most inconvenient time, when we are sleep-deprived, wet, exhausted, dirty and… so I rather subject them to “bullying” in controlled environment before they parachute into the real battlefield.
Allow me to recount a day from my SAFINCO days. My section was advancing under “fire” up a stupid botak hill-side in SAFTI training area. Due to the lay of terrain, we were funneled into some gullies. In the heat of fighting, my buddy started screaming “Blood, blood...”. Training suspended. Trainer asked what happened. My buddy was bleeding from a superficial facial cut. (Hey, I get more blood than that in some close shaves I have each morning). My trainer, who is a regular with ranger-tab, sighed and seated us down in the open under the blazing mid-morning sun. He said we need to start behaving like soldier. You have to be there to feel the significance and impact of his simple words. The tone and volume was even but the message stuck with me. Nobody will suspend a fire-movement forward in a real fire-fight to attend to a casualty. You look after the fallen after you eliminate the immediate fatal threat. And yet, we froze while the trainer continued to lay down “fire” on us. He can see it’s a superficial wound from his vantage point with his eagle-eyes but we froze… L For the rest of my days in SAFINCO, we were switched on, man. In a night training, I was casevec on the shoulders of my buddy. All of a sudden, we got incoming “artillery rounds” on us. My buddy literally threw himself, with me still on his shoulders, into a ditch. MG, it was dark, raining and I can’t see what’s in the ditch J Both of us could have broken our neck. Liked my trainer used to joke about our future Army, “Good Morning, CPL XXX. J Welcome to lane 1 of chamber 1 for your 5th 300m re-shoot today. I am sorry the groundsheet is a spot sandy now but please adopts prone position at your convenience. (Safety NCO dust the groundsheet) Pretty good day for a shoot, isn’t it...” I hope I do not live to see the day :)
i agree on the need for tough training...but i dont think bullying will make soldier more tougher. For example US Ranger training were tough and it makes them mentally ready for war.....if you research enough you be surprise the training doesnt involve bullying at all. Tough training create tough soldier.
yeah maybe we can argue that the world have evolve , now warfare were simply about technology as the ultimate tool. So what if the enemy hiding in a bunker...can bomb is it?...what happen if the enemy still there? bomb more? how do we feel when the general who is irritated when everytime he 'click' hill 101 with his 'surgical bombing icon' in his laptop decided to click and drag your unit to rush the hill?
The american have been using technology to their advantage, yet they also knew the grunts were the one who are going to clean it up in the end, and they trained them tough.
Let's arrive at a common definition on "bullying" here before we go any further. My definition - to intimidate. I mean to intimidate the soldiers with seemingly impossible tasks. I don't mean punching and kicking, I don't mean spitting into the open mouth of soldiers, I don't mean patching bullet holes on figure#11 with the small thumb-sized masking tape with our tongue. (yeh, my section kanna takan once in BMT because we screwed up on the details' scores when we were acting as butt-party. Range was not automated then.We just took it in jest. We were a crazy bunch). "Bullying" is a grey area. I can asked 2 sections to carry 2 assault boats overland with tight timing, all in the name of training. Some smart trainees will grumble:" Hey, why can't we get a transport to do the task. We are 3G army, you know". Let's push the boundary abit. What if I place a trainer on each boat to "motivate" the sections. Hey, I can justify by saying the trainers are "casualties" that the sections are moving to safety. When I was pioneer-trained, I carried my OC on a duck-board mat with 3 other trainees. Bullying??? To me now, just a challenge to overcome. I cursed silently back then. Your physical limit was pushed under controlled duress to know your breaking point. Come on, at the end of the day, nobody is going to kill you intentionally. The trainer and trainees were mostly aware about the safety boundaries. Of course, accident can happen but accident, by definition, are unpredictable. We can try to minimise the risk factors to acceptable level. That "acceptable" level is being challenged now.
The Americans had and have been fighting asymmetrical war. They have inexhaustible industrial capacity to fight their war. They tend to suceed in overwhelming their enemy with firepower. We don't have this industrial edge so we should not model ourselves wholesale on the American model.
I strongly believe that hand-to-hand combat is still an important infantry skill to hone. The Falkland conflict, Chenchya and etc provide amble examples. Sometime the fighting took place at range where you can see the white of your enemy's eyes.
By the way, very fit soldiers are not necessarily tough effective soldier. A professional sportman may not make good soldier; likewise, a SAS soldier may not become a good professional sportman. No direct relation.
Simply put, at the company-level, a good effective soldier possess a level of disciplined-aggression that is different from the average professional sportman. The closest may be the professional Muay-Thai boxers. There must be a latent hunter instinct to outwit the enemy and apply the killer blow as well.
Furthermore, we should remind ourself that our NS men are consripts. The reason some countries will tolerate tougher training is because their army is make up of Volunteers, people who are willingly to sign up for training and etc, and they are mentally prepared. After all, they get paid for the training, and if they want to slack around, they are simply wasting the tax payer's money.
Singapore NS is made up of people who may not want to be in the army at all. Some people simply isn't suited for an army life, moreover, they are not paid like those professional soldiers. It like saying everyone must be good in arts, sports and etc, which is impossible in real life. Some people are suited for other jobs as compared to being a soldier.
If the government continue to make NS training tough, the motivation of NS men to actually fight WILL be very low. Just because people has some military training does NOT mean they will be a good soldier and be WILLINGLY to fight.
I mean even in the past, you don't expect DIPLOMANTS to fight on a battlefield! And some times, a good diplomant is better and worth more than a soldier.
How to raise and maintain sizeable and credible armed forces in Singapore without conscription?
In the meantime, please review section Is Conscription becoming Obsolete? in the following URL:
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/publications/pointer/journals/2003/v29n4/features/feature2.html
I tend to believe that conscript soldier can be as effective as professional soldier. Let me quote the following paragraph "Historical performance of conscript armies shows that distinctions between short-service conscripts and volunteer professionals may be reduced or even disappear in wartime.
Moreover, it is recognized that improving the training and the quality of the officer corps also may reduce or even erase the differences between conscripts and volunteer professional soldiers.
This means that it is possible to improve the fighting capabilities of the conscripts" from the following URL http://ideas.repec.org/p/cem/doctra/271.html
How to raise and maintain sizeable and credible armed forces in Singapore without conscription?
In the meantime, please review section Is Conscription becoming Obsolete? in the following URL:
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/publications/pointer/journals/2003/v29n4/features/feature2.html
I tend to believe that conscript soldier can be as effective as professional soldier. Let me quote the following paragraph "Historical performance of conscript armies shows that distinctions between short-service conscripts and volunteer professionals may be reduced or even disappear in wartime.
Moreover, it is recognized that improving the training and the quality of the officer corps also may reduce or even erase the differences between conscripts and volunteer professional soldiers.
This means that it is possible to improve the fighting capabilities of the conscripts" from the following URL http://ideas.repec.org/p/cem/doctra/271.html
conscript as pro as professional ? that guy must be siao.
The lifespan(career)of the average so-called `Pro' grunt in the US army and marine is what? your 2 years to 2 1/2 years NS full time la. Most leave after that once contract over. So. Not siao. the 2 years - 2 1/2 years NS full-time is a smart move actually.
If the government continue to make NS training tough, the motivation of NS men to actually fight WILL be very low. Just because people has some military training does NOT mean they will be a good soldier and be WILLINGLY to fight.
I have to disagree with this point.
What we are stressing on is not whether the NS men is willing to fight? But more importantly is whether he knows how to fight when the s ** t hits the fan.
Ray have you been in a fight? Not war but a fist fight or punch up? If you are not conditioned before, you will definitely end up with a bloody nose. (so to be speak) The very first punch that land on you, your emotional feelings take over. You might get angry or you might get very scared. Your emotions take over and determines your next action.
Training enables you to control the situation. The tougher the training or conditioning, the better you are able to think and act accordingly. You are able to weather the stress and think straight. Ever heard the old saying from the instructors. "Shag rite!!! Cannot think properly rite???" It is conditioning. All those verbal abuses even without vugarities is to stir up those emotions. To make sure you are able to control them. And not to act like a blur f * * k with confused actions.
Long time ago in my camp, there is this gu niang who so scared to hold rifle. Kena F.. . like no one`s business on daily basis. Several months later, he is like pro and can shoot very well. And do it faster than some of us. We are too over-critical of our abilities sometimes. Typical Singaporeans. But it is also good that we are not over confident la.
i always believe in the following:
"The more you sweat in peacetime, the less you bleed during war."
One shud not equate ill treating soldiers to toughening them up.
Getting soldiers to do foolish and unnecessary things demoralises & does not make a better soldier. It only demotivates & the result is a sub standard soldier. Focusing on real training, whether physical , mental or technical shud be the emphasis.
Also the reality is that today's recruit is very different from 10 or 20 years ago in terms of physical & perhaps mental toughness. But isnt BMT supposed to build these up ? How it is done is for the Army to decide but the old ways are not effective nowadays. Proper training, whether physical or mental will still produce tough soldiers - one needs to define toughness and then work towards meeting the defined objectives. Better infrastructure such as good living quarters is a bonus for our guys - and why not - it is part of motivating our guys to become better soldiers.
On the positive side, the SAF is technologically superior to others in the region for the simple reason that our guys are highly educated. It is because of this that we can employ the latest & most effective weapons systems. More importantly, we are able to maintain them and ensure that they are operational at all times. You only need to see the percentage of high tech weapons such as fighter aircraft, submarines or electronic systems that are operational at any one time in the neighboring countries compared to ours. We take it for granted that we have well educated technicians and engineers to maintain our sophisticated weapons systems. We also take it for granted that we have highly educated people to operate them. Our neighbors have to train personnel from the bottom up to get these kind of people whereas we take them off from the polys & unis.
But , I aslo believe that is is comparatively easier to produce tough soldiers than to build a technologically superior infrastucture in this modern age of warfare. Only question is if we have the will to do so. So, let the guys and their parents complain, but if professional & effective methods are employed by the SAF, we will produce tough soldiers.
Only with technological superiority and tough soldiers can the SAF be a credible deterrent. But one must have more faith in the younger generation - they are up to the task but the SAF must also do its part - there are no compromises & tough training is required to produce tough soldiers.
Gentlemen...i seriously do worry about our soldiers in the 3G Army....
Anyone here share my sentiments?
One shud not equate ill treating soldiers to toughening them up.
Very true. How does asking a 36 year old man with 3 kids run to a tree and kiss and hug it related to toughening?
Gentlemen...i seriously do worry about our soldiers in the 3G Army....
Anyone here share my sentiments?
It`s something big really. It is not just a shift in equipment and doctrines but a pyschological shift as well. So, it is bound to generate strong feelings; especially among the old guard. I really cannot qualify this but i think it happens in military evolution; technology and capability move in spurts rather than gradually. An example is gun-powder and how `it' brought down civilizations older than the user of the chemical.
I think we should wait and see how it pans out. While the SAF is moving very fast on such issues(as compared to everyone else in the region), they are not rushing it. This will give them time to compare and contrast with equally technology proficient militaries. Personally, I think this is where most modern militaries will be in the near future anyway. So, Im generally positive in the sense that this is the way we have to move forward. But doctrines and strategies will have to be fine-tuned along the way. Your views please...
Oh, by the way, Tankee, nice topic. Start a new thread will you?
With NS being cut from 2.5 years to 2 years, there is really very little time to train our conscript forces. And that is especially true when it comes to officer cadets who will spend much less time in unit than his men. If there is a question worth asking, its about the quality of SAF's leadership cadre at the Platoon / Coy level.
If there is a cause for NS to look like a boy scout camp, it would have to be examined at that level first. Upper echelon leadership would demand for intensive realistic training, while lower echelons (Section) level would have no say in it. If the platoon level leadership with the largest group of NSF officers do not know how to plan and provide for realistic training, you would find the probable cause. I'm not saying this is their fault, just that it might be their lack of experience at unit and at operational level.
Now imagine if you get these folks to "enforce" more intensive and realistic trainings... thats when you start getting complaints of back injuries due to excessive locker carrying. Did the people who come up with "Locker PT" really know the operational value of their exercise? Or did they only care about their intensity?
If you ask me, I won't make a platoon of men do push ups because they were late or bungled. I'd make them do section fire movement over and over and over and over again. Push ups can be saved for PT.
1bomb can wipe out a country, whats with good combat skill, average knowledge will be good. we are talking about technology now, fighting combat skill dont really aid to fighting, unless is elite forces PESA ..
Ya, But nobody around here has one.
When the s * * t hits the fan you can bet your ass its gonna be conventional warfare. So please stop being those stereotype type about "no need to fight la... we so small 1 bomb and we are gone" BS.
With people like that talking all this crap we don't need any opposition propaganda to do us in.
Last I checked nuclear warfare isn't really on the decks in this region, so what's with this "one bomb" thing except to demostrate a lack of actual proper knowledge.
Firstly if we do not have a credible military, we will have a lot less cards on the deck when dealing with other things that don't have much to do with the military at all. You can forget about Malaysia playing nice in the water deals, they can simply cut or uncut the tap as and when they please because they know that you don't really have any way to stop them from doing so.
You can forget about people bothering to go to international court to settle stuff about whoes rock belongs to who. They'll just plant their flag there and we'll suck thumb and whine.
When push comes to shove and you are a pushover then you can forget about a lot of things.
Hi all, I was a contract regular in the army before I ORDed in 2005. I was in a combat unit as well as in an instructional role. I think that the army has become more of a political arm more than a fighting arm (even though we must still continue our training).
NDP, Aerospace (with Black Knights), Army Open house etc are all part of National Education which show cases our military strengths as a form of deterrence. It is more of showing to neighbours that we do not give up a fight but rather we'll kick them hard.
As to the point on training standards dropping, I agree to the fact that physical training has reduced much as tekan sessions are actually "illegal". Rather the army is concentrating on learning the skills and understanding tactics by incorporating technology.
I'm not thinking that our army is definitely good but what I meant is that there are definitely 2 sides of the coin to everything. Seriously, at ground level, what we see is this much. We will not know what is the big picture at the top.
Who do you think can kick a55 harder, a group of hardened but not so well equiped soldiers or a group of Chow Ah Kua armed to the teeth? During my time we just got big dicks & iron balls sticking out between our legs but the Modern SAF is a better figthing machine and will kick A55