Are our training realistic?
-
Hi all,just a continuation of singapore at war.After reading all those postings,i started to wonder....To all those guys who have done Ns,be it at officer,specialist or men level,do your think our training are realistic enough??i dont think so personally.
I was in an Armoured Unit during my service.Most of the time training was siong but it was so systematic,so precise that i wonder if something cocks up,would we be able to think of something up??
u know as in what time to reach objective,bashing thru where thru this route blah blah blah...there are no checks as in say when in reaching objective,one tank is blown up by a mine,then how? i know that there are SOPs but in training,are they ever done or practised?seldom cos almost all the exercises i did were very 'planned',like at 0230hrs,tank a hit by rpg etc
,or when we encounter unexpected concertina wire,as oppsed to we know that its there(heard from an engineer fren that it is very easily booby trapped)what are the procedures etc.
my point s that our army training lacks realistism at all.i feel that for most ppl,its not that they have no confidence in the army(thats bullshit!cos when nsmen meet up,what do they talk abt?ns stories,jokes!!)
If you have really been in service,you know that are equipment are really ok,not withstanding our Sm-1s tanks(but it was good economical sense to just upgrade them,since our neighbours had lousier tanks then)
our training have to be more realistic,more spontanous.i am due for my first reservist ICT middle of year,and i hope its the the same boring training agin!
hope to hear more abt your peoples experiences . -
'and i hope its the the same boring training agin!'
oops,should be not the same boring training again,haha cheers -
Same sentiments. It is difficult to simulate a real war situation as nothing beats the original stuff. What SAF can do is only boost our physical fitness. The rest I believe is upto individual's reaction to situation.
-
Larry is right. Anyway, neighbouring countries are not so clever to use so many different kinds of tactics. BTW, our neighbours had so low-tech tanks and sooooooooooooooooooo rew tanks. Whats there for us to lose.Originally posted by Larry:Same sentiments. It is difficult to simulate a real war situation as nothing beats the original stuff. What SAF can do is only boost our physical fitness. The rest I believe is upto individual's reaction to situation. -
Larry is right. Anyway, neighbouring countries are not so clever to use so many different kinds of tactics. BTW, our neighbours had so low-tech tanks and sooooooooooooooooooo rew tanks. Whats there for us to lose.Originally posted by Larry:Same sentiments. It is difficult to simulate a real war situation as nothing beats the original stuff. What SAF can do is only boost our physical fitness. The rest I believe is upto individual's reaction to situation. -
I totally agreed with you, mate. One of the most vital factor is that the people are trained up to increase their physical enduring, if one can actually go thru all these siong physical training...in the end of the day when you look back at it, its not that tought after all.Originally posted by Patriotic Tim:Larry is right. Anyway, neighbouring countries are not so clever to use so many different kinds of tactics. BTW, our neighbours had so low-tech tanks and sooooooooooooooooooo rew tanks. Whats there for us to lose.
To me, it will be a sense of achievement. what do you guyz think? -
Well Magpipe, i totally agree with you though i haven go to NS. Its a great sense of achievement. i will keep thinking to myself that i'm doing these fucking trainings for my country no matter realistic or not. BTW, weather the trainings is realistic anot, i dun noe what to say. veery year, our armour units go to Australia to train. I think its kind of funny. The terrain there and in Singapore differs. Will training in such far places benefits the tank commanders? I would rather prefere our armour units to train in local terrain. even though the comanders noe Pulau tekong at the tip of their fingers, tank commanders should be made to know about the local places, thus increasing effectiveness of our defence deployment. Or maybe even familiarise our northern neighbour's terrain and map. That good for the tankees. -
And let the crushing begin! Where shall we crush next? Westine Stamford or Newton Hawker Center?Originally posted by Patriotic Tim:I would rather prefere our armour units to train in local terrain. -
quite true also....
------------------
Hooyah for us dont quit! -
one thing i cannot stand is that during armour training, they don't consider traps and mines to be an obsticle at all. i saw the WO's just tear up white taps (that are suppose to simulate mine fields), and just go through single cons (meant to be triple con that can confirm stop a M113). if that is drilled into the tank com's mind, wouldn't it be deadly in actual war? don't they know, in war time, most obsticles have some one guarding them and if the first tank blow, in a bottle neck route, it will mean death trap for those down the lane?
Correct me if i am wrong, armour WO's and Officers seems to think that their equpiment is unharmable and they only consider to meet their objective time?
cheerz -
'Men' are actually suppose to be physically fit and good fighters.... While 'specialists' are suppose to be good fighters AND leaders... The planning and thinking are usually done by the Officers... SAF don't need to teach 'men' to think... 'Men' just need to know how to react when the time comes... And they would think DIFFERENTLY when they're lives are at stake and there's a need to....
Time objective IS IMPT because once the OBJECTIVES are not met, the other plans can't go on and in line.... And once time is not met, the objectives are consider FAILURE....
------------------
ße COOL, NOT s¢rr¥.... -
ok,when i started this post,it was for a open discussion on how unrealistic our training was..after reading all thru,i realise that i was right.a lot of the armmour training was based on meeting timing,just timing.yah,i understand that if the unit does not meet the timing,everything else is screwed up.but but....we have to plan for unexpected things to happen.someone mentioned abt the white tapes to siymulate minefields,to our armour infantry and drivers,it was abt the same as crossing a normal path...no fear,no carefulness,jsut normal crossing.i am not asking that mines be scatttered across a field to ask armour to drive thru,but more realistic condtions,have no idea,any thoughts or suggestions?
also,the obstcles someone mentioned is really real.one roll of con wire a tank still can go thru,triple con?dont tink so.in training,wahh so simple.just ask one AI to go down,simulate cut cable,then we move the con wire,so that wow,con wire can be reused!
ur know wat pisses me off?when i write all these,and ur guys add in ur thoughts,the stoopid unrealsitic traing is still gonna carry on .why?cos ppl will find it a nusance to implement changes,and no one with the power and position to implement changes will be reading this!if only pioneer mag or something are open to suggestions like this.
i am not someone who is so free,but if can help our saf improve ,why not?cos since i am going to do another 12yrs of reservist training,why not make sure that that training we get is really going to be useful(touch wood)if required.any comments?? -
well said APC, time objectives are not everything. if in peace time training, the officers have the idea that they can reach their objective timing, then in war time, they will plan using the same timing, that'll be big shit huh...
cheerz -
hiya P tim,this is just to answer your questions why we train austraila.ya,you are right in the sense that the training in local areas will be more realistic,and also its confirm much cheaper than setting up a training base storage base in Oz..
what we can train locally is just the tatics, the drills ,but to fully carry them out in coy,brigade,division level,in areas like our tiny lim chu kang training area,its a joke!drive 5 minutes,contacted enemy,drive another circle around the hill,contacted again...
whereas when i was in OZ,we were on the road for 4 hrs before we reached the freaking training area!true,the terrain is something that is unlikely we will ever fight on,but the training we got here was totally different...we got to learn how to be o the road for hours,how to go without sleep and fight when we are tired..i am not advertising for the SAF btw,but it was one of the most enjoyable period of time in my ns life!yah,the training was siong,but the R&R was good man!also,flying overseas for training definitely beat taking a 3 tonner to lim chu kang!
one thing for sure,its only when you are there,then u realise how small spore is(meaning the 1 hr travelling time in Oz,we could have driven across spore!) -
My 2 cents. I feel that the Singapore Armored force's way of fighting an armored warfare is somewhat similar to the US Army's way of fighting. They objectify and then travel through a corrider and must achieve the objective in @ a certain time. Cannot too early, cannot too late. This is to achieve synchrnoization with the rest of the armored operations in order to achieve the maximum effect. It is good, but like what m113 said, it does not take into account of murphy's law.
I prefer the US Marine's Doctrine to armored warfare. The best way to describe their doctrine was that of a street fighter, and the US Army's way of fighting of that of a proffesional boxer in a ring. Marine's way of fighting relies on relentless attack into the objective area, but its not restricted by time. During any operations, they will seek out any form of advantage and will use it against the enemy, and they will carry on the attack even after they have reached the objective area, not stopping as long as it sees a weakness to be exploited. Yet, even in contingency situations, it will work its way around it and still continue simply because it's not limited by time. But by it's own fatigue and logistics.
The US Marine's doctrine allows it to attack and move fast, much faster than the Army counter-part, and it was thus moving further ahead during operations in the gulf. -
Ever ask why the US marines and US army fights with different tactics in mind??
The US marines goes around rushing and attacks relentlessly with the objective of penetrating as far as they can go.
While the US army fights and hold the ground... clear any remnants left behind by the marines.
I consider both strategy as complementary...
the US marines tactic enables rapid strike, depriving the enemy of rest, unbalance the enemy's plan and defence strategy by hitting the enemy and constantly changing the situation. this complicates enemy planning especially if the enemy has a rigid command system where all orders come from the top.
The marines objective is simple, KEEP MOVING... KEEP HITTING and KEEP up the pressure on the enemy until either the enemy crack or the marines went out of steam.
But this strategy alone by the marines tax the limits of the marines logistics and manpower... in short... this strategy cannot apply for long without rest. eventually, the marines will also get tired and they will start making mistakes and if the enemy has a huge reserve military units, they could wait until the marines got tired and then move in.. with their fresh backup force..
So... any ordinary general could see how to beat the marines and this strategy obviously cannot work alone.
Enter the US army with its complementary strategy to save the marines butt. the US army move into area cleared by the marines and set up defences and ensure that the marines logistic lines remains safe and free-moving. The army will follow where the marines went and continue to fortify defences all along the way.
When the marines gets tired or face an insurmountable force.. they pull back and let the US army deal with the enemy hot on their heals.. since the US army didnt fight most of the time and has ample time to prep their defences.. fresh and well-supplied.. the US army will withered any enemy units trying to attack the US marines (which will now be sleeping behind the US army lines).
Once the US army significantly weakens any enemy attacks and pile up huge losses for the enemy... in comes the reckless marines again.
So... the 2 forces of the US armed forces is liken to the sword and the shield. the marines are the sword while the army is the shield, spiked shield if u like. US army special force like SEAL and DELTA force plus para units are like the flying daggers.
In SAF... the guards are the sword, the infantry and armour is the shield. the commando and the special force are the flying daggers.
So... the armor must fight in conjuction with other units like infantry, engineers, scouts, arty and other units. the armor are not expected to lead an assault, neither are they expected to fight on their own.
we live in an area full of jungle... any armour assault must take into the consideration of the terrain... our terrain suits for an infantry or heli-mobile assault.. not armour assault... unless we got M1A1 or some form of MBT....NOT AMX13, secondly, an armor assault can only be possible if there is open space... i doubt M1A1 can wade through a swamp. BUT AMX13 would work great as part of a defensive line. we dont need tanks that can shoot very very far... because of trees and other obstacles... few targets would be within direct sight within less then 1 KM. in the jungle... we cant even see 100 meter straight without some trees blocking our view.
In fact... i think the CSM of the armor unit that some poster posted with regard to removing 3 concertina wire and let the tanks through is probably acting on the assumption:
1. the scouts already noted the presence of the obstacle, traps, mine field or watever enemy forces hiding in the bush.
2. the arty has already shell the place to hell.
3. the infantry is guarding the armor's flank, so no no to sneak attack at bottleneck.
4. the engineers are on hand to convenietly remove the traps, mine field or whatever along the way before the armor arrives.
OR... the armor force is moving through area already cleared by the guards...so....
But i am not involved in the excercise... so i cant really tell... what happened.
Let me share my similar experience when i was in taiwan.
My battlion was guarding a ridge.. and boy do we have everything on our side... we literally make a critical valley the valley of death... we have so much heavy weapons, Arty, mortar, MGs, LAW, 84, MILAN, claymore, minefield,tripwire, con wire....(typically kiasu all the way) covering the bloody valley...
along come the enemy...a brigade size (only 2 goondoo carry 2 stupid flag) and they walk up the hill..... i can swear.... my battlion could take out at least 2 brigade if not 3 with all those firepower.. .... BUT..... we lost.... why??? cos they say my battalion got arty until chao da already before the enemy brigade move up the valley... sigh.... the enemy not stupid leh. -
Its easy to forget about enemy artillery when you have such superior firepower. Honestly, I believe your loss cannot be attributed to anybody. Rather, your opponents had critical information regarding your emplacement, while you guys had no information about their capabilities. Which is the exact reason why Singapore needs to get those Apaches. Helicopters will target artillery units hopefully before they become too effective.
Which is why, US Marines prefer to engage in a mobile defense, where a Defense can turn into an Offense. Their constant but quick attacking pace helps to suppress and rip the enemy up into bits. Their irregular but fluid attack, makes it hard for enemy fire support to hit them. In an attack, one has the initiative, on the defense, one surrenders it.
Basically, we should set up a similar facility like NTC to train our armor and infantry realistically or sometimes unfairly. To realise how the enemy can make full potential of their equipment.
The Israelis once sent their armored units to NTC North Carolina to participate in wargames. They got chewed up to hell by the "Red Force" comprising of tanks and equipment simulating a Russian or middle eastern force. The Israelis, never had their asses chewed up like that before complained that their arab neighbours would NEVER fight like the red force did. The commander of the Red force simply answered, "but they can." Hardly any guests wins @ NTC, they hold no grudges but will do anything to ensure the destruction of the guests equipment. I heard the only troops that won there was the Buffalo cav. and the Blackhorse cav. Those were all units who once participated as the red force. -
Its easy to forget about enemy artillery when you have such superior firepower. Honestly, I believe your loss cannot be attributed to anybody. Rather, your opponents had critical information regarding your emplacement, while you guys had no information about their capabilities. Which is the exact reason why Singapore needs to get those Apaches. Helicopters will target artillery units hopefully before they become too effective.
Which is why, US Marines prefer to engage in a mobile defense, where a Defense can turn into an Offense. Their constant but quick attacking pace helps to suppress and rip the enemy up into bits. Their irregular but fluid attack, makes it hard for enemy fire support to hit them. In an attack, one has the initiative, on the defense, one surrenders it.
Basically, we should set up a similar facility like NTC to train our armor and infantry realistically or sometimes unfairly. To realise how the enemy can make full potential of their equipment.
The Israelis once sent their armored units to NTC North Carolina to participate in wargames. They got chewed up to hell by the "Red Force" comprising of tanks and equipment simulating a Russian or middle eastern force. The Israelis, never had their asses chewed up like that before complained that their arab neighbours would NEVER fight like the red force did. The commander of the Red force simply answered, "but they can." Hardly any guests wins @ NTC, they hold no grudges but will do anything to ensure the destruction of the guests equipment. I heard the only troops that won there was the Buffalo cav. and the Blackhorse cav. Those were all units who once participated as the red force. -
Never underestimate your ENEMIES... That's the FIRST STEP to FAILURE....Originally posted by Patriotic Tim:Larry is right. Anyway, neighbouring countries are not so clever to use so many different kinds of tactics. BTW, our neighbours had so low-tech tanks and sooooooooooooooooooo rew tanks. Whats there for us to lose.
------------------
I have no 'friends' nor 'family'.
I hold no past and see not future...
These are just samples of illusions....
I don't exist, but I shall live ETERNITY..... DEVIL PHRASE II
ße COOL, NOT s¢rr¥.... -
I pretty much agrees with Tripwire's breaking up of the Warfare Organisation and believe that the connection and commanding of these 'groups' would be the job of the COMMANDERS.
Still, there're some points which I would personally like to act.
1st to TRAINING. Training is a process whereby the Singapore men can achieve the knowledge and skills of their 'professional requirement'. It also substitue them into the 'vancant roles' that the SAF have created and REALISE them.
The objective of the training is such that each soldier 'soil into their personal role/part'. Do you know that as trainings are conducted today, there're always SAFETY rules and regulations breaking out and hanging around? During older days, trainings were so tough and 'inhumane' that MANY had suffered. Details would not be go into nor discussed here. Consider the fact that THOUGH Safety Regulations and Rules are set up, there're still ACCIDENTs going on. And do you know how would that affect Singapore in Manpower wise and Political sense? (If the regulations and precautions were not set up?) Think of the LIMITED manpower in Singapore and you'll roughly get an idea.
In order for a soldier to performs, he needs skills, physical health and situational awareness/performance. The first 2 mentioned point could be found in your training. The last one is up to individual and also your 'education'.
Talking about Marines and 'fluid movement'.... Impact? Singapore is a VERY SMALL LAND with VERY LIMITED men. Our main body DON'T run about and beat our enemies up like the Marines. In Singapore, 'the sky's the limit'. Once the air defence is down, we're ALMOST 'there'. Without the 'sky cover', the tanks would basically have NO WHERE to run. Such a small land, do you really think there're many parks and vegetations around in Singapore? Do you think the M113s could be running about in the 'parks' without bumping into the trees?
We're playing a DEFENCE warefare here. Hence the TOTAL DEFENCE system... There're much more to DEFENCE than guns and bullets.... Why is the ARMOUR training so EMPHASIZING on TIME and CAPTURING of objectives? Because without the capturing of good locations, places would be stand out and eventually lost (Just like when you play RISK the board game or any other warfare strategy games... And you've seen in HISTORY if you study the past wars...) Singapore is NOT a very big piece of BOARD... If you don't do it IN TIME, you'll be 'out of the game' in NO TIME.... Lost ONE of your objectives? And you'll GREATLY affect the REST.... In DEFENCE warfare, POSITIONING is VERY IMPT.....
We can't afford to run around hitting the enemies... Because we don't have enough MANPOWER to run about.... We're surrounded by coasts.... If we don't take POSITIONs we'll be hit like DON'T KNOW WHERE.... Any POSITION we happens to lost have to be RECAPTURED in NO TIME because the enemies can move in.....
If the enemy is really having a PLANNED attack on you they would LOVE to see you running about like a LOST kid in your own PLAYGROUND.... With 'FORCE' MAXIMISED and allocated on the POSITIONs, we sure don't wanna be moving around too much unnecessarily...? Even if we do, we would have to be 'swift and decisive'...?
------------------
I have no 'friends' nor 'family'.
I hold no past and see not future...
These are just samples of illusions....
I don't exist, but I shall live ETERNITY..... DEVIL PHRASE II
ße COOL, NOT s¢rr¥.... -
Eh... Au contrare. Singapore would lose a Total Defense war strategy. Defense surrenders initiative, and initiative is life blood in war. Singapore would go for an offensive war plan that will focus on knocking out the Highest chain of command. Why would Singapore invest into hundreds of advanced fighters just to play a defense game when a war starts?
Why we said Singapore's rigid armored strategy might fail has already been stated. It does not anticipate fog of war, but focuses plainly on reaching objectives on time. What happens when a company of tanks encounter a minefield @ a crucial crossing? To clear the mines would mean delay, to go accross would mean casualties. None of which are acceptable. They have their given transit area, thus they cannot re route the minefield. Finally, its the last option, clear the mines. Thus the counter-mobility objectives of the enemy forces have already succeeded and have broken up the synchronization of the Armored force. However, adopting the USMC way of fighting would allow the unit to sweep the mines, and then accelerate the pace further and faster without having to wait for further orders to advanced into the next area. -
If it is a crucial crossing, a valley or a stupid ravine... then it goes without saying that the enemy might attempt to mine the area. as such... any good armour commander would do wise to send scouts to check out the area and if mines are found, they can be quickly cleared by the engineers, before the armor arrives.Originally posted by Shotgun:Eh... Au contrare. Singapore would lose a Total Defense war strategy. Defense surrenders initiative, and initiative is life blood in war. Singapore would go for an offensive war plan that will focus on knocking out the Highest chain of command. Why would Singapore invest into hundreds of advanced fighters just to play a defense game when a war starts?
Why we said Singapore's rigid armored strategy might fail has already been stated. It does not anticipate fog of war, but focuses plainly on reaching objectives on time. What happens when a company of tanks encounter a minefield @ a crucial crossing? To clear the mines would mean delay, to go accross would mean casualties. None of which are acceptable. They have their given transit area, thus they cannot re route the minefield. Finally, its the last option, clear the mines. Thus the counter-mobility objectives of the enemy forces have already succeeded and have broken up the synchronization of the Armored force. However, adopting the USMC way of fighting would allow the unit to sweep the mines, and then accelerate the pace further and faster without having to wait for further orders to advanced into the next area.
and armor dont fight alone.... the infantry would be there too... every battalion has a sapper unit that can remove mines too. -
Ever considered what happens when the Sapper units got blown to bits by Artillery rounds in tandem with scout/sniper units?
In fact, the commanders needn't even deploy mines. All he had to do was put some signboards saying minefield ahead. I mean, people do take these signs seriously.
Mine clearing technology is becoming rather advanced now. One launch and a couple of mines detonate. The thing is, it still takes time. Given the option, i'd take a mine clearing artillery barrage. Or put a huge magnet and suck up all the mines. -
i heard tat malaysia is upgrading her tanks and buying russian T72 tanks
must be jealous of singapore's military might
------------------
Love rotates the world, not hatred. -
They considered where they were gonna train their T-72 crews?? Anyway, the T-72 is Jackshit. Even a M-60 could take one out easily. It has the lowest rating in armor among all the tanks in the modern russian inventory. Anyway, Russian export versions have been known for to be very sub-standard. And the T-72 is VERY sub-standard already... LOL. You'all should have checked out the cockpit of the MiG-29 they bought before they had it upgraded. Pure Analogue controls, nitemarish dials and switches everywhere. It even had a RADAR SCOPE! The pilot had to bend down and look into the scope! GeeZ!