Standard of SAF

last SG · 2003-02-01T14:36:19+00:00

Not every unit in the SAF is sloppy and slack. If yours is, your officers are killing you with kindness. But it depends on what kind of slack you are talking...

laser51088 SG

Just how accurate is artillery??? If you are close enough to get a very good hit on a tank with a LAW, you probably will be scared half to death when arty falls on the enemy too. . . depending on arty accuracy. . .how do you know your arty won't get you??, especially if you want to be zipping around in an LSV, possibly close to enemy tanks

my two cents

kopiosatu SG

frankly when i read this thread...
i get pek chek listening to pessimistic views regarding our armed forces...

look, we're not going to WIN a war.
if there is a war, we will definately lose without any support.
i
ts whether u all bother to fight with what u got.
why talk abt all these things abt missiles unable to pierce armour?

it has been proven that 'obsolete' arms can take down even the most technologically advanced vehicle/plane/tank etc. etc.

instead of sticking to one idea, its better that we dun talk about our weaknesses (those that perceive it as that). and when something does happen, think of an alternative.

YI SG

That's why Singapore had been participating in peace-keeping mission in both the middle east as well as east timor. Although there may not be much combat experience, the logistic and readiness (mindset) had been tested.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Well, that's because rethoric and human spirit in battle usually does not stand up to incoming sharpnel and bullets. Case in point, since when has going into battle with superior weapons and tatics a bad thing? Esp when we have more money to spend then these guys getting their lously MBTs.

Why do we need superior weapons, training and tatics? Because we are a small country without numbers and losing people needlessly due to inferior equipment will be a bigger blow to us then them. Yes, it's about how you fight, but it's also a lot about what kind of equipment you have. And in the case of the SM1 tank, we're sending our tankies out in tin cans and miserable little pieces of outdated stuff that can't hold in battle. Sure they will fight vailanty, they will fight and fall like lions, but how hard is it to kill them? One shot will blow them to knigdom come and they can't really siam anyway, or worse, even beofre they get of their only shot in war which is hardly going to have a chance of detering an MBT anyway. Is it only when we start taking this kind of needless losses will we think of equipping our armoured forces properly? You you think human wave assaults with inferior equipment and hoping to win by overwhelming numbers will work with our kind of mentality and population? Not unless we're Russia or China. We only have 250,000 troops, we need to make sure every one of them has the best chance of causing damage and making it through, and that's not going to be by fighting spirit alone, my optimistc friend, that takes good weapons and proper armour. Not hoping to get close in LAW shots and getting cut to shreds by MG fire.

Case in point of all fighting spirit but no technology to back them up: Polish Calvary vs. Nazi Panzers.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Originally posted by CX:
on thing about the LAW though... its crap...

i think if they HAVE to make infantrymen lug that stupid load around, it might as well be good for SOMETHING! its demoralising to know that the LAW [b]cannot be used effectively against modern armour...

but u can't use it for an AP role as well cos the HEAT warhead won't generate the BIG explosion to maximise casualty in the open.

what are the chances of infantrymen meeting a jeep or some other soft-skinned vehicles which they MUST take out with a LAW??? totally bizarre if u ask me...

hee hee... why not get some of these from the Russians?
RPO Shmel Infantry thermobaric weapon

http://www.kracik.com/me/w_shmel.html

[/b]

That fat russian trooper looks like Sammu...

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

That depends, if it's open, tank country, then long range shots are possible, but most of the time, we're gonna engage a lot closer, where a fast reloading 120mm gun is gonna be a lot more useful then an ATGM. ATGMs are good for backup and additional firepower, but unless we have tons and tons of them, stopping tanks with them needs to be bloostered with MBTs.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

To be on the side of caution even more, note that almost all of Malaysian main anti armour systems can take out our armoured units, but only a small fraction of our systems are able to do the same to their MBTs.

We do need a boosting in area of armor. Maybe a fast mobile light tank version of the Merkava and Abrams cross?

foxtrout8 SG

Of course ! Current missile can nv replace guns in anti-tank warfare , however im jus stating the usefulness of the LSV in fighting the MBTs malaysia is using. Most of the battles will be fought in built up areas and jungles , which make non-line of sight engagement extremely useful.

To enage tanks , we might not need to resort to close engagment. UAVs will be for scouting , while artillery bomblets can be use to neutralize an advancing battle group , while apaches and friendly ground forces will move in to block any enemy escape routes and to clear up the remaining enemy's tank.

Being frank , i cant buy the idea that LSV arent useful in anti-tank warfare. Being fast and more agile that the MBT , with fire support from the air and land , the MBT will be doom. Being slow , the MBT will be dead duck in traps formed by those fast running LSVs. Bionix/Ultras and future L. tanks will provide direct fire support , Apachse and the LSV will give precision attack on key moving targets . With the ''stand-off distance'' of the spike and the hellfire , i dun think the MBT can even spot us b4 the missiles come slamming into their face.

kopiosatu SG

what makes u think singapore doesn't have better technology.
what is DSTA for?
just because we don't disclose stuff doesn't mean we don't have it.
what you know abt the law is just things we use in training.
when the actual war comes, we have the real weapons n armour.

what we are doing now is letting people train the basics.
in SG, they don't develop weapons in such a way until u have to learn a new skill to use it.
basically all weapons are the same, we all have weapons like rifles, grenades, tanks. just focus on your training. coz Singapore has things u don't know.

have u gone to army btw

CX SG

Originally posted by kopiosatu:
frankly when i read this thread...
i get pek chek listening to pessimistic views regarding our armed forces...

look, we're not going to WIN a war.
if there is a war, we will definately lose without any support.
its whether u all bother to fight with what u got.
why talk abt all these things abt missiles unable to pierce armour?

you pek chek what? its just a hypothetical discussion and a little bit of commensensical analysis based on open domain info what...

u mean we all should shout "RA RA SINGAPURA!!!" and wave pom poms about everything Singapore? thats not the point what...

we are talking about LAWs unable to pierce modern armour because its TRUE! HEAT warheads are considered obsolete with regards to modern armour battle scenario. even SAF has taken that into consideration in its excercises... its only realistic.

we have to take these factors into consideration if we are to be effective in confronting our adversaries on the battlefield.

it has been proven that 'obsolete' arms can take down even the most technologically advanced vehicle/plane/tank etc. etc.

thats true... usually at great cost to human life too... just ask the Finns during the Winter Wars... we need to be realistic... Sg can't fight with pure bravado alone.

instead of sticking to one idea, its better that we dun talk about our weaknesses (those that perceive it as that). and when something does happen, think of an alternative.

when u're facing the wrong end of the barrel of an MBT, there's hardly an alternative to the inevitable outcome Mr. Green

lacking an effective AT response at the section level IS a grave weakness i'ld rather they resolve ASAP...

if that is not the point at all, then i'ld rather they not issue an ineffective AT weapon to weigh down the troops.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

It appears you have changed your tune from 'we can make it with SM1s" to "we have secret weapons we do not know about".

No, the simple fact is, in order to deploy a mainline unit and make sure troops are versed in using them, we have to openly deploy them and train units in the use of them. They dun wait till the outbreak of war before releasing a new weapon system our "trained" troops know nothing about, of which it's quirks have not been tested in the field by the person whose opinion matters, the tankie. Introducing a new conventional weapons system (not covert secret weapons like the F-117) means quite a lot of media exposure, and exposure to the troops.

Saying that all weapons are the same and just focus on the training would be like saying everybody train in the M-16 and at the outbreak of war, suddenly issue SAR-21s out to everybody and expect them to use their M-16 training to fight effectively with the rifle! Even more so for tanks, if we had new advanced tanks, ours troops would be training in them now, and deployed widely so that our troops all know how to fight in them properly. What you are saying is that when war comes, they'll pluck you out from your SM1 and put you into a new tank you know nothing about and have no time to train in. Nonsense, anybody with common sense can tell you that!

The fact remains that, with our SM1 tanks, our armoured forces are outclassed and we remain reliant on our air support and other units that can only slow them down, not stop them for our anti-armour tatics. That is assuming we're defending. If we are attacking to take land to create defensive dept as the open secret of what Singapore is going to do in the event of war, can our SM1 tanks hopeful advance against ATGMs and MBTs?

Does Singapore have weapons systems they do not disclose? Probably yes, but only for those small scale deployment equipment, not as something as widespread as a tank!

kopiosatu SG

'trained' troops u mention... are not in SG.
all i can say is that, we do have other things, not what you think.
you can ask the regulars, but everyone has different clearance levels, so there are things regulars don't know.
and seriously i can't say anything more...
i'll end my discussion in this thread for now.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

So they are not aviable to regulars who make up the main bulk of Singapore's firepower.

I suppose they'll be as effective as Hitler's secret miracle weapons towards the end of World War 2. On which he promised their nonexistent salvation from the allied assault... Rolling Eyes

kopiosatu SG

well, u can speculate.
enjoy Wink

CX SG

well, nearly every military has secrets... but i agree with the point that its pointless for your secrets to be so damn well hidden that nobody knows about it when u need it...

UNLESS of course, that there is a big enough group to work on it BUT a small enough group to still keep it hushed up... EVERYONE has HEARD of SOME rumours of THIS nature... RIGHT??? Twisted Evil

i exaggerate of course, but lets keep this discussion based on info available on the public domain. Very Happy

not only should we not jeopardise security, but i'm sick and tired of people who come in here post, and say "but there are things YOU people don't know about but i can't say more Rolling Eyes "

if u can't openly state your knowledge of certain information, DON'T SAY U KNOW THEM! have the decency to keep up the pretence in a PUBLIC FORUM!

no point trying to show off and then try to back off when people ask for clarifications! u just look lame Evil or Very Mad

kopiosatu SG

thank you.
show off is one thing.
security is another.

Atobe SG

We have to be careful with thinking that we may have the superios numbers over the existing "balance of armed numbers" in SE Asia.

When comparing numbers, it is not just the effective numbers that are in the armed forces alone that is considered, we have to look also at the "Replacement or Additional Reinforcement Potential".

From a C.I.A. study of the Armed Forces of the World (see referenced web site below), the following equation should also be considered::

MALAYSIA
Population: 22,662,365 (61% in the 15 - 49 Yrs Age Group)
Military Manpower Available (15-49Yrs): 5,933,296
Military Manpower Fit for Armed Forces: 3,592,997
Military Manpower Reaching Military Age Annually: 196,042
Military Budget: USD 1.96 Billion

INDONESIA
Population: 231,328,092 (N.A.% 15 - 49 Yrs Age Group)
Military Manpower Available (15-49Yrs): 65,013,184
Military Manpower Fit for Armed Forces: 37,942,329
Military Manpower Reaching Military Age Annually: 2,263,706
Military Budget: USD 1.0 Billion

SINGAPORE:
Population: 4,452,732 (75.3% 15 - 49 Yrs Age Group)
Military Manpower Available (15-49Yrs): 1,354,857
Military Manpower Fit for Armed Forces: 986,101
Military Manpower Reaching Military Age Annually: N.A.
Military Budget: USD 4.47 Billion

Although the standing strength of the SAF Army maybe significantly larger in terms of numerical strength when compared to the Malaysian MAF; we are outnumbered by the Indoneisan TNI Army by a ratio of at least 10 to 1.

In terms of REPLACEMENT to the standing Army, the numbers above can be quite telling.

http://wps.cfc.dnd.ca/links/milorg/index.html

laser51088 SG

While Indonesia has a very large number of landing ships, I am of the opinion that few of them are operable at a moments notice, most are poorly armed or carry no armament at all. It would be quite easy to take note of any possible military action by Indonesia.

CX SG

i think it only helps to have a large population if u have a protracted war of attrition.

otherwise, the outcome would've been determined within hours, or days after the first shot has been fired... WAY before reinforcements can be mobilised or fresh troops can be trained to replace front line casualties.

Sg has chosen to build its military to fight this way... along the lines of the IAF... it is prudent because of some similarities between the 2 countries so ASSUMING that things go EXACTLY as planned upon the outbreak of war, it should be all wrapped up within weeks, if not days. in such a scenario, a large manpower potential won't matter if they cannot be forged into the tip of a spear immediately.

the problem, of course, is that NOTHING ever goes 100% according to plan. we could take out their frontline troops, warmaking capabilities and supporting economic infrastructures, we could use psychological warfare to undermine their civillian will to fight, but if they just refuse to give in and give up, we'll be stuck on a long road to nowhere and eventual destruction.

the mere threat of war will render this region USELESS for foreign investments and trade. i think this is Sg's ultimate achilles heels.

thats why like Sun Tzu said, war is FAILURE because it is preferable to achive one's aims through politics, diplomacy, espionage and deception, not outright war!

warspite SG

[quote]
on thing about the LAW though... its crap...

i think if they HAVE to make infantrymen lug that stupid load around, it might as well be good for SOMETHING! its demoralising to know that the LAW cannot be used effectively against modern armour...

but u can't use it for an AP role as well cos the HEAT warhead won't generate the BIG explosion to maximise casualty in the open.

what are the chances of infantrymen meeting a jeep or some other soft-skinned vehicles which they MUST take out with a LAW??? totally bizarre if u ask me...

Let me clarify the use of LAW. This weapon was never designed or intended to be use against MBTs. The term Light Antitank Weapon is just an acronym for against armour, inclusive of light armoured vehicles. It was meant for APCs, AIFVs and light tanks such as our SM1s. For those guys out there who had been in the army, you should rememeber the instructor stressing this point; this is not for hitting MBTs!!! For MBTs, we got Milan 2 and Spike. Milan 2 may be a bit ineffective against tank with reactive armour, but still packs a punch though. And remember the Carl Gustav 84mm RR. Yes, i know it is cumbersome and heavy (I was the gunner for a few months) but it is effective against up to 3rd generation tanks. To use it against the PT91 or T84s, we just have to buy the latest round for this weapon, eg FFV-751, with tandem warhead for reactive armour.

For SM1s, its role in SAF has never been to go up against MBTs. When they were bought, there was never a threat from MBTs, only AFVs. Tanks in our doctrine were more for fire support, never to fight like the european terrain. We do not have wide plains like in Europe (believe me, I mean really WIDE). In this region, the only areas where you can see that FAR is the rice padi fields, and I don't think anybody is going to use tanks en-massed there. Cos they will be sitting ducks!!! I will simply put LSVs at the edge of these fields with Spike to utilise their range to the max.

Some posts here have compared My's MBTs (forthcoming) to our SM1s. Bearing in mind the terrain and tactics used, this is like comparing apple and orange. For those who have trained in jungle like terrain, you should know that traversing a turret with a long gun such as those on the MBTs would be almost impossible in a dense jungle with track roads.

Just my 2cents worth....(don't flame me)

« Previous Page Next Page »