Should SAF be Brigade-based or Division-based?

last SG · 2003-10-24T17:21:27+00:00

not bad….they took exisiting systems and just combined them…better then the XM8 MGS

laser51088 SG

saw a question like that in an article sometime ago. will try to find if i can. but anyway, just wondering if it would be more effective for SAF to base its force structure on a brigades rather than divisions, especially considering its small size. ie. have some combined arms brigades instead of just combined arms divisions. a combined arms brigade would probably be more useful in limited conflicts and might make for easier deployment, shifting decision making to lower ranking officers in SAF.

not to say that the army should do away with combined-arms divisions totally though, this will be the stuff that will have to make up the main fight in a conventional traditional war for survival.

gary1910 SG

I think we should rethink the structure of basic infantry unit itself rather than whether they should operate in Bde or Div level.

Current Div structure has two light infantry Bdes & one mechanised Bde.The two light infantry Bde is simply too low in firepower in today standard and most excercise the Div commander will most split out some of the mech units to support the infantry units so to increase their firepower.

Therefore the light infantry bde is just too low in firepower to be fully autonomous in today warfare.

We should upgrade our Infantry units from light to at least "motorised" with Bronco ATTC to transport our infantry to where action is(afterall some of them are NS men & you need to keep them as fresh as possible b4 the fight), & with some fire support AFV says 12 Terrex with 105mm gun per unit incorporated into every infantry units. This will not only increase firepower & mobility of our infantry , it will also able to operate more autonomous whether as individual battlelion or in Bde level.

want to know SG

Sorry but what is the difference between light infantry Bde, mechanised Bde and motorised Bde.

Please explain!

Thanks!

gary1910 SG

More to add, there were some arguement that SAF should operate in Bde level becos advance in RMA in today warfare. The enemy might have the same type sensors , precision weapons & rapid deployment forces that we have which make the future warfare much more fluid which means quick decision-making much more critical.

A flatter hieracy will be much more suitable for future warfare so that the a lower ranking officers will make quicker but critical decision becos of fast pace of tomorrow warfare.

IAF SG

motorized is the same as mechanized, i believe. Mechanized units offer greater mobility and firepower...such as armoured infantry and IFVs or guards & LSVs

wuming78 SG

tt is wat i feel too. not necessarily a flatter hierarchy but more empowerment and de-centralised decision making, esp with better information gathering and sharing. this will enable flexibility and nimbleness. but of course, this also comes with a price of lesser resources. in singapore's case, its likely they would like to pool resources than spread them out. also, smaller forces will be more suitable for LIC but not conventional warfare, unless the system is so well-integrated and the troops are so well trained to be able to make decisions even at the lowest levels, and their technologies (equipment, logistics, armoury) are so advanced as to be able to make up for their smaller resources and other constrains of smaller sizes.

gary1910 SG

Light Infantry is just like today SAF infantry units :purely foot soldier w/o great fire support.

Mechanised infantry is like today SAF Armour unit, with APC/IFV to bring soldier to war front with greater fire support from tanks & IFV.

A motorised infantry is term used by the Russian where the troops are transport by truck thus the term motorised.

Mine envision of "motorised" infantry is between the Russian version & that of western standard mechnised infantry with light armour Bronco to transport the troops to increase their mobility & other fire support AFV to increase their firepower.

spencer99 SG

I think the reason why we would not move to Bde-based is largely political.

Basically Divisions "sounds" better than brigade. We are even trying to form a "Armoured Divsion (according to Huxley). Nowadays, Amred brigades just doesn;t have the political impact anymore.

Also career officers need formations where they can serve. So we will have bigger and bigger formations so that there will be more and more higher positions and can justify higher ranks.

If we have brigade forces, what will the current Division Principal staff group do?? I won't be surprised that we will have a "Corp" level formation in the future. Maybe a "defensive Corp" with infantry units and a "offensive corp" with Armed and RDF Div.

Broken Arrow SG

Personally, I feel that SAF should reorganised the make-up of our fighting forces.

Firstly, Guards should be the only pure infantry-base combat forces, while all if not, most of the infantry should be converted into armoured infantry operating in small units (ie. 4 man + 2 comdrs section) with fire-power support from the IFV (wheel based-Terrex or even light strike vehicles). These troops can easily be reorganised to conduct infantry type assault or patrols if necessary. One consideration is that the force structure may be too expensive to maintain.

Secondly, the CADs should have 5 - 6 brigades (1 infantry brigade + 3/4 armoured brigade and an artillery brigade) somewhat like what the American have. These forces can then be task organised into 2 - 3 Task Forces to conduct operations. I believe we should enough brigades to have the proposed structure if we can explore the technological advancement (ie. smaller size forces with fire-support).

Please comment. Cheers.....

gary1910 SG

As you refer as "defensive Corp" is already exist in the guise of the PDF formations.The 1st & 2nd PDF are almost 2-3 Div strength.

Our "offensive corp" is our three combined arm Div, but I do agree that the Infantry bde should all be converted to be mechanised infantry bde & become truely mechanised infantry Div but this will be view to be too aggressive to our neighbours.

As for Armoured Div that Tim Huxley has envision, it is more likely be the much heavy armour like a Tempest MBT but will be more like a Western standard mechanised infantry one not a truely Armoured with 300 over MBT in a Div becos the terrain r unlike those in Europe & Middle east where there is large flat plain for such units to operate.

gary1910 SG

Just want add something that I have speculated abt our so called 21Div & 32 Div.

21 Div has been rumour since the 90s but so far we only heard abt the Amphi Bde & the Air mobile Bde ,nothing abt the third bde . I do know that one is stationed near a air base & the other near the coast.

As for the 32 Div, the 4 SAB is rumour to be in this Div but there is no confirm report abt any other Bde.

Could it be that so called 32Div is actually part of 21 Div with one Amphi, one Air Mobile & lastly heavy armoured mechanised Bdes which operate autonomously in Bde level?

Your comment pls.

spencer99 SG

Whatever the makeup of the 32nd Div, if it will materialize, I think that it does have a significant political impact. This could have a deterrent effect which was the objective of having the SAF in the first place.

initially, I am not too sure of the Armd Div until I see two 155mm SPH on trailers along one of the roads in the West part of Singapore one fine morning. I ask myself, why would Singapore need 155mm SPH howitzer unless they are going to have a Armd Div. ??

IAF SG

dude..discussions of sightings of the fabled MBT & SPH are almost like talking about rare UFOs sightings Cool

gary1910 SG

Having SPH does not equate to have a amoured Div,for Sg case must likely to be only a bde size, cos the whole so called Armoured Div are suppose to be fully regulars if I am not wrong.Another thing abt the # of MBT, we suppose to have slightly more than a 100, just enough to form a BDE.

Even if we wanted to have a another Div , is most likely to be difficult with the tight manpower constraint that we have.

Another thing abt the 21 Div ,which is suppose to make up of all the Guard Units, only two bde are known.The NSF units is only left with 1st & 3rd Guards , the 2nd Guard is already disbanded. Let do some calculation:

6 NSF infantry units which eventually formed 6 Bde in the 3 CADs.
2 Guard units which eventually formed how many Bde? Answer is 2.

|-|05| SG

Well to me being divisioned based is much better.It helps in C&C(command and control)I mean it gives the army and overall sense of direction and coordination.Instead of having 4 brigade command stuff fighting abt plans and then executing it it is easier to have 1 Division stuff planning and executing it.Helps if there is any problems with plans too.

spencer99 SG

I know what I see. This is not something that i heard people see or think I see. I actually saw two SPH mounted on trailers (sp?) on Singapore roads.

The Trailers are stopped in front of Traffic lights and I had a very very good look at them.

Atobe SG

With the SAF being built up around NSF it will have a strength of over 300,000 men and women - including Regulars.

It will allow for more effective Command & Control for MINDEF HQ to deal through a few Division Commanders, rather then micro-manage a large number of Brigade Commanders from MINDEF HQ, or some other Campaign HQ; and leaving more Battalion Commanders to co-ordinate with each other at a lower subordinate levels in the field.

It will only lead to confusion and communication breakdown during Battle.

If one Platoon consist of 40 men, a Company with 3 Combat Platoons will have 120 men PLUS its own Company HQ strength of another 40 personnel - totalling 160 men.

A Combat Battalion will have 3 Combat Company PLUS Battalion HQ and Logistics will have approximately 600 men and women.

A Brigade will have 3 such Combat Battalions, PLUS Attached Specialist Support Platoon from the various Specialist Arms - that will include Combat Engineers, Artillery, Signals, Medical, Logistics.

All the primary and sub-groups within a Combat Brigade will need careful micro-management, and the Brigade Commander will be assisted by his HQ Staff.

The Division Commander's Role will be to see the broader picture of its assigned sector of the War Zone, and will co-ordinate the activities within his War Zone with that of the Other Zones.

All of which will contribute to the entire effort in winning the War under the guidance and Command of either a Campaign General, or directly under the Command of the SAF Chief of Defense Force, aided by the respective Chiefs of the respective Services (Air, Army and Navy).

When one understand the structure of the chain of command, it will be difficult to see the rationality of trying to remove the Division Commander's role in this Order of Battle.

The role of the Division Commander will be required, when a War of several fronts is being waged, across great distances.

If ever a Division Commander's role is no longer deemed necessary, a great reliance will have to be made of modern day C4 and I equipment, to allow a greater directional control of the Brigade Commanders from the Campaign HQ.

Structure of MINDEF
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/index2.asp?cat=mindefchart

Structure of the SAF
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/index2.asp?cat=safchart

http://www.geocities.com/mindef123/

http://www.geocities.com/mindef123/Army.html

http://www.geocities.com/mindef123/Army.html#Individual

gary1910 SG

Actually it does not matter whether that we operate In Div or Bde level, just what Wuming 78 has said, it is impt that the Bde level or lower is empowered to make quick critical decision in today fast pace warfare w/o going thru another layer of command.

Today digitised warfare with too much info to grasp at the same time , it is better to delegate as much as possible to be nimble.

Eventhough they r empowered, do they have capability to do so, I said not. That why I started the argument with restructuring of our Infantry Bde.

A good example is what happen in Somalia,The US eventhough with LOH & LAH , the lightly armed Rangers & Delta force were still got trapped in the Urban enviroment with enemy with superior number.
They needed the armour column to bashed thru with armour & firepower to get to them.

A light infantry units will be alright in thick jungle but might get into trouble in a urban enviroment therefore the need to have some firepower and armour to get the job done.

gary1910 SG

No one is disputing what you have seen , it was well known that we have bought some Paladin chasis to be armed with our own howizter.

Since this capability is already known , I would like to disclose that we already have a small amount of SPH in the 80s for evaluation, these new SPH might be replacing them.

|-|05| SG

Well to compare our infantry bde and the rangers is like comparing apple and oranges!!!Take for example the situation u have given.In Mog the rangers job was a capture and extract.Meaning the rangers did not expect to be there for more then 3 hours and hence they were out fited accordingly.They werent meant to have any offensive punch at all.You can compare that to say our commando's striking an enemy radar station behind enemy lines to blow it up.You are not going to out fit them with armour now are you?

Though future warfare is currently slanted towards small scale hit and run warfare as evident in Iraq currently and i agree that what you propose is good to deal with that you have to remember something..in order to even get to that stage you'd need an army capable of winning your enemie's in the field.Much like the US infantry,mechanized and armoured divisions in Iraq.So no i do no agree that we should change our infantry structure.Our 2 AI bde can to the job that you have currently highlighted.After all i believe we need to strike a good balance between light and heavy forces though maybe having 1 more AI bde would be good.