Standard of SAF
-
What do U all think of the standard of the SAF? -
Better then MAF... and RMN ......
Note by Silenthunter:
Opps... Sorry, I press the wrong button and accidentally erased part of your original message.......
can you re-typed? 
Paiseh -
hahaha u want to know saf standard?
sure....
it is for me to know and for u to find out... <<< hahaha sounds familiar? if u had being through NS. -
satisfactory i can say.
-
difficult to say as a whole... NSmen don't count... they're only considered "operationally ready" after 2.5 years and thats only the beginning...
some reservists make u laugh while some are really quite fierce... if u're the enemy, u just have to ask yourself if u feel lucky...
think of it this way... how would u like to get on the wrong side of the ah seng / ah long sitting with one leg on his chair at the kopitiam? they're already quite deadly with a beer bottle... picture him with an m16 or an SAR21... or worse... a GPMG
i've met some during my NS days... they're nua usually but they really know their stuff out field and thats where it matters
-
wad u mean by standard of SAF?
relli veri hard to comment...we have nv experience real combat -
thats ok... cause every battle is a NEW experience...
while experience soldiers could stand up longer and withstand the stress and difficulities of war better then a newbie... ultimately.. one bullet they still will mati...
veterans troops arent invincible...
experience forces arent guarantee always victory... -
Why are you so sure? As far as i know Malaysian are not stupid at all.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Better then MAF... and RMN ...... -
Of course they are not, they're just... free frags... but dun underestimate them, hit them with everything you got...
-
Of course they are not, they're just... free frags... but dun underestimate them, hit them with everything you got...
-
yeah, I'll wager my last dollar on SAF in any conflict with MAF and RMN, but it won't be a walkover, SAF will win, but will have very high losses also. . .[/b]Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Better then MAF... and RMN ...... -
Assuming they both start out on level ground, if the SAF utilizes its vastly superior air power and paramilitary mobility in the opening hours, effectivness of the MAF will be severly affected in the first few engagements, and in war as we know, once you slip a bit, it's usually a downhill slide the whole way.
-
SAF, a force to be reckoned with?
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Better then MAF... and RMN ......
[b]Note by Silenthunter:
Opps... Sorry, I press the wrong button and accidentally erased part of your original message....... can you re-typed?
Paiseh
[/b] Oh really? I think that our neighbours's army are much larger than us. -
That's why we should not over-rate ourselves sometimes.Originally posted by MinisterOfDefence:wad u mean by standard of SAF?
relli veri hard to comment...we have nv experience real combat -
It's best you check out the figures first. You will be surprised.
-
It is not the size of the army that counts.Originally posted by ngsl86: Oh really? I think that our neighbours's army are much larger than us.
It is the quality of the training first, the commitment behind the training, and the quality of the maintenance of the equipment that counts.
You can have the most advance and highest technology equipment that money can buy, but if the soldier is not committed to his training, and goofed around without keeping the equipment in a high state of readiness, the entire military set up is just a show piece good only for parades.
Israel had to contend with the might of all the Arab countries around her, and the total population of all the countries around Israel overwhelm Israel by 10 to 1.
The military opposition that Israel had to face is of similar ratio.
During the Yom Kippur war, Israel was caught by surprise, and suffered a severe INITIAL military set back, losing territory that it occupied, and losing large numbers of life and equipment in the first three days of the Yom Kippur War.
It was the basic training of the individual Israeli soldiers that allowed the brilliant plans of their Military Leaders to be put into effect, which resulted in the rolling back of the advances that the armies of Egypt and Syria had made in the opening gambit of the war that they initiated.
Although, the Singapore Armed Forces have not experienced combat in any real life war scenarios, the high tempo of training that the SAF conduct throughout the NSF men's military life (from 18 years to 40-50 years) will give the NSF Men "the experience" to CONDUCT War - when called upon to do so.
If you want to test how hot the flame of a candle is, place your hand as close to the flame, and for as long, as you dare. -
As said before, if you are badly run and managed, having more people would only mean having more dead bodies to collect at the end of the day. A large army that is ill organized and badly run will panic and be routed a lot faster then a smaller, well armed and trained force. In such a case, having large forces but low quality can be a liability... Once one person breaks, it sets off a chain reaction of panic and fear.
-
A few points that have not been mentioned yet that might cast some light on this discussion:
1. The SAF outnumbers the Malaysian Armed Forces nearly 2 to 1 in terms of manpower.
2. The SAF has more combat aircraft, armored vehicles and tube artillery than Malaysia and Indonesia combined (in each category). In fact, we have nearly twice as many combat aircraft as both combined.
3. The RSN can put more anti-ship cruise missiles into the air at a time than the Malaysian or Indonesian navies and these missiles have longer range.
So much for strength. I might also add that most of our equipment is considered to be more advanced and in better condition than our neighbors'. Our combat support arms are also considered extremely capable.
However, as Atobe says, it is not about numbers, but how they are applied (though I think Atobe was arguing in the wrong direction -- we are the ones with the numbers).
What is the standard of the SAF? It is impossible to say until we see our first real battle. However, my personal opinion is that our troops will hack it. The average Singaporean is not a coward and will fight in a disciplined manner when pressed. Our combat leaders (officers and NCOs) are well-chosen, though the style of leadership they are taught is a little inflexible. Nevertheless, I think they will manage. -
All in all, we actually have about five times more firepower then them up north, but they seem to think they have an more then adequate defence. They apparently rely on a method of 'voice over matter" because their entire military operational plan seems to be based entirely on shouting and proclaiming that they will prevail.
-
Yeah! Agree! SAF can be considered one of the strongest army in S.E Asia. However, I think that the Thai Army is also strong, even better than the SAF.
-
I still think that some of us are over-rating the military might of the SAF. Remember, the SAF is set up to defend Singapore, not to fight over small matters between other S.E countries and us.
-
Before we can attack, we have to defend first.
Huh? -
The SAF is not an army of aggression. It cannot be, since the bulk of its strength is composed of reservists. When the SAF goes to war, Singapore's economy shuts down. This makes war extremely expensive for us, even when we achieve victory.
Therefore we are not inclined to fight wars for trivial reasons. The reason why many regulars to this forum talk in such strong terms about our military might is because we are fed up with the attitude of the average Singaporean. Many Singaporeans think that we are militarily weak and are inclined to give up in war. That is just sheer ignorance and cowardice. You would think they would give a damn and find out what the real story is. Morale is as important as military strength in war.
About defending vs. attacking: We cannot defend without attacking. Because Singapore is so small, the only practical way for us to defend ourselves is to attack. We have no strategic depth. A single quick thrust and we are defeated. Therefore, if there is the slightest chance of war, we will attack first, and the war will be fought over the enemy's own land. The war will be a fight by the enemy to retake his own land.
That is why we have to be so strong militarily. We have no other practical means of defense, therefore we need the strength to mount a devastating attack against determined opposition. That is also why our armed forces are such a source of suspicion. Our neighbors know that if they push us too far, we will attack just to be safe. We are a hair-trigger threat that hangs continually over their heads. We have no choice but to be this way.
This is also one of the main issues I have with the SAF. Are our citizens prepared to attack another country, capture her land and resources and subdue her population (at least until diplomacy resolves the issue)? SAF officers and NCOs understand what the battle plan is, and know why this is necessary. The enlisted man may not understand and may quail at this necessary brutality. We should theoretically educate the nation about this, but talking openly about how we need to assault our neighbors is not good diplomacy. That is also why we cannot openly educate our public about our military strength.
A pity, really. -
Strong? The thails have problems with fundings , however i shd say their armed force is extremely active....... Dun worry , we have confidence in fighting off the thails.Originally posted by ngsl86:Yeah! Agree! SAF can be considered one of the strongest army in S.E Asia. However, I think that the Thai Army is also strong, even better than the SAF.
However striking deep into thailand may be with difficulty , it is more reasonable to form multiple defensive line along the SCS and the SOM to block any attack. This contributes y singapore have such strong diplomatic ties with thailand.