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

bcoy SG

I was from 21st Div when it was first formed in 1990. Guards units can be found across all divisions and 1/2 PDF - although the numbers will be eventually reduced as older units ROD. Newer units with go to 21 Div and eventually in PDF.

As the SPH - its a replacment for 120mm mortars currently found at the armoured brigade level. Somebody mentioned 39 Cal.?

gary1910 SG

Actually I am not comparing the operation but rather how lightly armed the Rangers is just like our Infantry Bde. They could encountered the same problem w/o sufficient firepower & armour.

To strike a balance ,that why I proposed to have the Infantry Bde to be "motorised", not mechanised like our SAB. They will be still foot soldier in the jungle enviroment but with veh bring them there so to increase mobility. They will also have firepower from wheeled AFV in a urban enviroment.

Currently , they will get the firepower by having armour column attached from the SAB & split one or two armour battlelions.i.e. SAB will then have their operational effectiveness reduced.

Why dun we simply have the infantry Bde to have their own firepower like intergrating AFV into their units to increase their firepower & cohensiveness.

gary1910 SG

Not really , the SP 120mm mortars will still be useful in our armoured bde level or should I say light armoured mechanised infantry bde based on western standard.

The 155mm SPH are meant for the heavy armoured Div/bde? that we suppose to have.

|-|05| SG

You are comparing the Rangers who are trained and use for specialized missions to our wide ranging light infantry bde?What for?The Rangers are like our guards units!You should be comparing our infantry bde to say an infantry bde in the 10th Mountain!They are organized to same way....they are infantry but in the Division there is an mechanized bde.
And you are saying motorise?Will technically speaking there is no difference between a motorised division and a mechanized division.Both have mounted troops(troops in afv's) and have their own supporting armoured element.A unit like the 10th mountain has most of it's troops infantry with out afv's but they move around on trucks but dismount near a target and proceed on foot.However the 10th also has an mechanized bde in it for the added firepower.That is how our current divisions are organized.What you are proposing is a fully fledged mechanized division!

gary1910 SG

The argument started whether that we should operate in Bde level or Div level.
I said that our current Infantry Bde just simply have insufficient firepower to operate in all enviroments autonomously w/o the support of the mechanised bde , they r just simply to lightly armed to be autonomous in all situation & enviroment. Do u agree?

As for the motorised part, I am proposing the Bronco for transport not a IFV, Why? Becos it lightly armoured just like the US HUVVM to prevent injurydue to small arms & arty bombarment during transporting the troop & not using it for fighting like the IFV.

That why to have them operating autonomously, they need their own firepower, in this case I propose a wheeled AFV for fire support w/o any help from the mechanised bde & w/o losing the nature of them to be foot soldier & as well as firepower when needed.

gary1910 SG

The 10th mountain unit is supose to operate in mountainous terrain where you dun find any heavy AFV & you also not operate heavy AFV yourself in those terrain, that why they r light! They r a specialised breed operating in a unique terrain.

The SAF infantry r not specaised breed rather suppose to be able to operate in both jungle as well as urban enviroment. You r actually making a very bad comparsion.

|-|05| SG

no....the 10th mountain is called such by name only......They are the 2nd wave of troops to be moved into position after the RDF of the 82nd and 101st Airborne....do not let the names fool you.....they are just for unit history sake.

gary1910 SG

I think not ,they should also be able to fight in other enviroment but their speciality is in the mountainous terrain just like the SAS has a special regiment to operate in mountain too

|-|05| SG

Taken from the official 10th mountain website

To meet the Armys requirements to train large numbers of replacements the 10th was reactivated as a training division on July 1, 1948, at Fort Riley, Kansas. It didnt retain its wartime designation as a Mountain Division and as result lost its "Mountain" tab. The Division had the mission of processing and training new soldiers for service with other Army units. The outbreak of the Korean Conflict in June 1950, enlarged this mission. A total of 123,000 men completed basic training with the 10th during the period 1948-1953.
The Division was officially reactivated on February 13, 1985, at Fort Drum, New York as the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry). The division commander after reactivation was Brigadier General William S. Carpenter. The 10th was the first division of any kind formed by the Army since 1975 and the first based in the Northeast US since World War II. The 10th Mountain Division (LI) was designed to meet a wide range of worldwide infantry-intensive contingency missions. Equipment design was oriented toward reduced size and weight for reasons of both strategic and tactical mobility.

Website is here http://www.drum.army.mil/history/divisionhistory.htm
It operates much the same way as the 25th infantry division
They are currently the only 3 regular US army divisions that are still light infantry.The rest are Mechanized Infantry.The 82nd and 101st are the 2 Airborne left.

Edit:the 7th infantry is also light i think....i'm guessing since they're website is not really good and they only have 1 armoured bde instead of something like 3 for the mechanized troops.

|-|05| SG

The US no longer has that kind of troops actually.All infantry especially the Light Infanty divisions are are trained to fight mountainous terrain.But i think the 7th infantry has taken over that role though i am not sure....since their website is not really good. Very Happy But they are stationed in a mountain base so i'm guessing here.

laser51088 SG

someone posted about basing almost all infantry units on some kind of vehicle (assuming i understood correctly)

was wondering, since NSmen constitute the main part of SAF, won't the SAF end up with loads of vehicles sitting around doing nothing during peacetime?

however, i do agree that infantry units should be mechanised as far as possible, unless they're used for defensive purposes only and dun need mobility, else getting troops to march to march to the fight will just lower their effectiveness unnecessarily. . .hmm, suddenly wondered, are there enough trucks to move all the troops that will be used in offence?

laser51088 SG

Deleted : Double post

gary1910 SG

That what I have suggested , I believe Mindef is thinking the same thing, why I said that is becos we already has 300 BV206(not armoured), and from certain web site that said that ST is going to build another 500 of Armoured Broncos for SAF.
Do we really need so many armoured Broncos/BY206s for logistics, normal 3 tonner truck should suffice. What do you guys think?

|-|05| SG

Well cost would be one factor….another factor will be how useful will all that AFV’s be when you gotta go into the jungle and weed the enemy out?I mean it wont be cost effective to outfit all your units with afv’s only to have 1/2 of them not used during both peace time and wartime.I agree though that we need more AI bde or reg instead of the current 2?

gary1910 SG

Just to add a bit info on the BV206 & the Bronco.

The 300 BV206 that we have is not armoured & suppose to be abled to carry 12 soldiers including crews.
The Swendish company is also selling the armoured BV206S version which are used as a APC, I believe the British has just ordered some.
Assuming abt half r used as a troop carrier maybe even more, says 150 of them and could carry abt 11 men minus the driver per veh. They could ferry abt 1650 men.

But our ATTC Bronco is amoured & could be also be uses as APC. If what reported as correct , SAF is getting 500 of them. They could carry abt 16 soldier plus driver. Let say we take away the driver , we will hv 15 soldier per Bronco and 500 Bronos will be total of 7500 soldiers.
Therefore with 150 BV206 & 500 Bronco it is abled to tranport abt 9150 men

Our current Infantry Battlelion is abt 600 men & therefore 1800 men/ Bde. 6 Bde will be abt 10,800 men.

If you take away the support coy which mostly has their own vehicles you take away abt 100 men per unit,
Therefore the 6 Bde will have 9000 men that need transport.

In conclusion , our Bronco & BV206 will most probably able to support the six infantry Bdes that we have assumming my number is right.

Please comment since I am making lot of assumption.

Others:T
he PDF file abt AFV with especially pg 44 on the Bronco.
http://www.armada.ch/01-6/complete.pdf

bcoy SG

Besides the Broncos - there is the Terrex being developed as well. My own opinion is that the wheeled vehicles (Terrex) will support infantry units. The Terrex vehicles are not organic to the infantry units, but are attached and used according to the required mission. My unit already operates in a similar fashion.
For the Broncos - my opinion is that these should go to amoured and rapid deployment forces. The British Royal Marine Commandos are starting to receive similar tracked vehicles for future rapid deployments. Not all Broncos are personel vehicles - there are logistics or ambulance, motar carriers, etc.
Just my personel views only.

bcoy SG

I saw something similar once, on public roads. But was partial covered, with the wind blowing it up for a short while.

gary1910 SG

That is what I am saying all along, currently infantry units is just simply under powered & need support from attached Armour units for certain mission.

This imply to have one or two battlelion to be split up to support the infantry which in turn reduce the operational effectiveness for our SAB.They should not be attached but be organic so to improve cohensiveness & quicker response to situation when the need arise & also more be autonomous for our infantry bde.

And the same time our SAB will not have to reduce their operational effectiveness by supporting our current ineffective infantry units in certain mission.

bcoy SG

I get what you mean - however some minor points - although the armour support units for infantry units are not organic, they are permantly attached. Also, these support units are not from any SAB from what I understand - they are a dedicated support unit by itself. So SAB will not have their effectiveness reduced. Unlike armoured (mechanised) units, infantry units do not use armour transport fulltime. Armour transport are used when only when missions requires it. Vehicles are not suitable for certain terrain or tactical "quietness". Basically they are used for transport and covering support fire. But yes - these vehicles do carry more firepower than light infantry units. I'm quite sure that future developments will be interesting for military nuts, with the Terrex LAV. For me at least - I've been on the navy's fast craft/LST, airforce choppers, and now light armour support.

bcoy SG

On a side note – Malaysia is keen to develop a single combined arms division, based on an armoured brigade, a mechanised brigade and an infantry brigade. The armoured brigade is your traditional armour unit (more tanks), the mechanised brigade – more IFVs, and the infantry units will have some wheeled light armour support. Of course – this is on paper only at the moment.

« Previous Page Next Page »