SAF Combat Survival course

Moxie SG

Please lah, the whole topic is like the oft-used metaphor of (myopically) comparing the colour of parachutes when jumping out of the plane.

Combat Survival course is super-siong.

POW courses are also super-siong.

But neither can ever adequately simulate a torturing session by a hostile enemy fishing for information in a real war. They won't necessarily carry cards respecting the Geneva Conventions.

esesce SG

When war actually breaks out, everyone screws the Geneva Convention lah. Even the US screws it & justifies doing so by saying those are unlawful combatants not POWs. Watever!! Rolling Eyes

Point being, if they want to extract info from you, they will not stop at making you carry jerry cans, roll in mud or splash you with a hose. They'd gladly clobber you with a baseball bat or shove a broomstick up your arse. Now how are you gonna train for that? But having said that, I guess having some form of training is better than none at all.

Some ppl have questioned whether ALL training done by SAF is realistic or not. Well I can't comment on that since I'm only a small fry in the establishment. But think about it from the other point of view. If training is TOO realisitic & casualty figures hit the roof, what's gonna happen?

Ppl are gonna protest. Parents are gonna make noise. And ultimately they'll have no choice but to soften the training. And IMHO that's what's been happening. I did my BMT in 1996 under 3 BTS & comparing that to today's BMT, I can already see a massive softening.

I'm not from combat side so I don't know how true this is, but I heard that SAF seldom does live firing. Its mostly blanks & sometimes even "universal rounds" which I feel is the biggest joke of all.

In some other countries' armed forces, they use live rounds all the time. I read from this SOF website, can't remember if its Philipines or Indonesia though. But over there, its live rounds & explosives all the way & it is considered normal & "acceptable" to have trainees dying as part of their training.

What do you think would happen if we implement that here? Oh yes, it'll probably "toughen" us up a lot. But think of the backlash from the public esp the parents.

Johnston SG

:/

2IC said to us, when we slack in taking cover: "smelly mother genitalia! you know in Israel they dont need to teach how to take cover? They ji tao use live round and fire!"

If real war is E=MC2,
we are now learning the basics, while others are learning alegebra.

Johnston SG

We're lucky that we don't have a neighbour like China always saying "you damn rebel island you, one day i will invade you." Compare the reaction of Taiwanese to their army. And how about ours?

We have a lack of a visible aggressor.

Yes, i can think of the backlash. I can also think of the outrage if we ever fight a real battle, and videos start making their way back. For a good example, one need only point to Somalia.

crosshairs SG

To those who are against the idea of CSC, or who are ignorant of the process (ie, never went through it).

Yes, you do have a choice. But to a certain extent, and its not an easy choice to make. But I don't think it is wise for anyone to reveal it here. Those here who have gone through it should appreciate the secrecy of the entire process. So please, don't shame your parent units.

As for those who went through it and never found a good reason to support it's continued existence: You will probably not be sent on an important mission. As I have read in the papers in the forum from one of the writers (he went through it twice, voluntarily); the whole idea of CSC is to not just inform the soldiers of the common sense that one does not want to be caught, it is to DRILL it into their heads. Training, is about drilling. It is to prepare the soldiers to make the right decisions, and to let them rehearse their roles as POWs.

Disclaimer? Here's what I think. Declaring that you are not someone's blood brother doesn't put one in a position to undermine the decision of that person's parents. In fact it would put one in a position that discourages one to do that.

The officer died as a result of very bad judgement on the part of the trainers and the overall miscommunication through the ranks regarding training procedures. That is all I understand of it. If one were to discredit the value of CSC, it would not be unimagineable that the next thing on the list of suggestions would be the total exemption of military training in NS, which is happening right here.

LazerLordz SG

But the crux is still about conscription versus voluntary.If someone were to be blacklisted because he had a choice not to go, and exercised that choice, wouldn’t it seem pretty vindictive on the part of the ones who selected him to go, without fully profiling him psychologically?Comes back to square one again does it..

crosshairs SG

When you are admitted to a university based on your a level results, are you gauranteed a graduation?

TVaddict SG

we love red land… we will fight for red land with our heart and soul…

LazerLordz SG

No you are not.But you had a choice whether to enrol in the first place.

crosshairs SG

I think we are trying to settle the issue of gauging a combatant's performance in real life, given certain known factors, and how much we should expect of him, and whether a test of that level is necessary. The issue of choice should be deliberated separately. However..................LazerLordz......you have never been to CSC am I right? I am afraid I cannot comment any further than this.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

I don’t think a cold-blooded SAF is the way to go. While we must be concerned about maintaining standards, at no time shall we adopt the idea that a few deaths are acceptable here and there. While it’s easy to talk garang and say that more dangerous training is okay if there’s a gain in tougness, imagine you were a sibling or parent of somebody who’s going in, not of his own accord, into a system that does not really care if he’s gonna survive. It’s a breeding ground for community chao keng from NS, as well as kicking the PAP way out of power, by which time having NS or not would be a moot point.

Moxie SG

I don’t get it: Which part of the term “fake interrogation” (as designated for the water treatment phase) does some of the posters don’t understand?

boboshoot SG

Hi all,

This is my first post so if I'm a little "off the mark" please forgive.

I think we need to differentiate between the (1)Purpose and (2) Practice of the CSC.

(1) Purpose
Having gone through it in the early 90s, I agree with most proponents that it is an essential part of training - especially for units who have to operate in environments that there is a high chance of being outgunned and surrounded. It trains the soldier in survival instinct - to run, hide, escape and evade and a healthy dose of fear.

This is not something that we can just do without in training without detriment to the quality of our training (which is already not very good). take for example, live firing - dangerous, but we need to do it, because you don't know what its like till u go through it.

However, I think the purpose of CSC should not be to train heroes who can withstand any tortures in war, come what may. That, God forbid it happens to anyone, is up to you, your conscience, your mental strength and your love for your country men - No amount of training can instill or simulate that.

(2) Practice
In practice, no training can truely simulate reality, nor should we blindly try to make it as close to real as possible all the time. For eg, common sense dictates we shouldn't shoot at each other at live firing, even though the experience is definitely "beneficial". When people go overboard, like in our sad case, tragedies are bound to happen.

However, the fact that we had a lousy practice in SAF for CSC, does not mean we should discontinue it. As i said in (1) i think it is absolutely neccessary (not easy to say for someone who suffered it before), so instead of just canning things when things go wrong, as is the norm in SAF, we should instead how we can improve the "practice" to attain the "purpose" without having more sorry events. This does not neccessarily mean that the training will get any "softer" or easier on the trainees. It simply means more common sense checks in place (eg, can dunk in water up to a time, but make sure no repeated dunkings) -

I think if we remember the purpose is to familiarise soldiers with POW, and NOT to train super heroes, then I think we can practice it safely, and still as "painfully" as before.

And as for heroes, well, I have no illusions about being one... but after CSC, I know what it takes to be one.

baer SG

Firstly I am in last stretch of reservist, most of which is in Infantry. During active I was instructor at ITD (1985-87).

There are two kinds of training. To impart skills and to condition. Many so called instructors (NCC, SAF or elsewhere) never understand, which is what.

You can never 'acquire' tolerance or endurance for something like being a POW (mind you, you cannot 'pretend to be POWs'). Anyone and everyone can be broken under interrogration, only 'how fast' and 'what happens along the way' differs.

The 'so called' CSC (as I understand from comparative study with SAS E&E, US Ranger and SEAL training) is meant to give trainees a taste of how best to resist the simple forms of abuse and ill-treatment. It does not equate with Rambo type heorics to resist torture or histrionics of "pride and country".

I think what was lost along the way when the CSC was 'expanded' from those who really could benefited (Ranger training), to all Commandos, to your run of the mill Brigade Recce and Guardsman Scouts, is PURPOSE.

Why do Guardsman need such exposure? Yes, they are likely to be captured, so is any mothers' son on the frontline (Duh!). Is CSC someone's sick joke gone bad when it was 'extended beyond Ranger Training?

I remember a time when SAF Ranger selection was the only time we see POW interrgoration (now desguised as CSC). Comparing CSC to SAS, SEAL or US Ranger is 'talking cock'; those courses are 'volunteers only' in an all professional army, CSC has no place for NSF who operate on FLOT not behind enemy lines.

Why is CSC not practiced with pilots? They are more likely to end up behind enemy lines and have important information in their technical skills. It's because the RASF has realised the limits and practicalities of such training.

Has it become a course with too many instructors with too much free time and a bit too much of one upmanship that a dunking tank now sits in a courtroom?

No doubt that the SAF is getting soft (note: 'safety gear' on SOC obstacles!!!) but that is no reason to allow instructors who are misguided to become "course terrors" without any benefit or training merit.

specfore SG

May also be off track here. I did not go thru' CSC but during trainee days during full time NS, our OC put us through "impromptu" POW treatment training.

However, he was responsible enough to explain that X% of the trainees WILL BE CAUGHT deliberately near the end of the exercise (in Tekong). These X % will be subject to a half day POW treatment, which will be observed by the rest. He also explained the rational behind this. All trainees accepted the challenge and were convinced.

I was one of the lucky/ unlucky (depends on yr perspective) X% who got chosen to "endure". I was put under a staff SGT who was the lead captor. I remembered being stripped of my shirt, blind folded and forced to kneel for a long period. After about 2 hours, an instructor asked if I wanted a drink. We were taught to cooperate but give little info about ourselves and unit etc... but we were taught to cooperate enough to get a drink or food if captured. So I said "yes", and suddenly a cup of tea was thrown in my face. Usual taunting started, the instructor saying something like ... "you want your tea... you got it ... in your face... hahahah...." Anyway, most the "torture" was verbal abuse, altho' one of the instructors tried to put some large red ants on my body.

Lesson learnt?... well if you are really captured, you will face worse treatment. So if you can't take basic POW / E&E training, then hope you don't get captured by the enemy. But it was good to get a small insight into captive POW treatment. It is an important part of our training.

« Previous Page