Standard of SAF
-
Not a chance. The difference is vast.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.
-
I agree with most of what you say, however, they numbers do not differ so much now, and I think Malaysia, once they have finished buying the tanks they want (variants of PT-91, T-80), they will actually outclass Singapore armour, at least in terms of numbers and the amount of fire power each force is able to field at any one time. MAF tanks would be limited only by terrain and the ability of logistics to keep up with them yet not be vulnerable to attackOriginally posted by dkhoo: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.
my two cents -
60 to 100+ of their polish tanks to fight 100++ of our LSV ? The odds are clear and distinctive.
Imagine jus for one senario , 20 of this light strike vehicles running and hunting like piranhas , shoot and run at the same time. Together with CAPs and the Bionix and Ultras Fire Support Vehicles , our anti-tank capacity can outfight the current modern tanks of malaysia. How much tanks can malaysia field into so much fronts that singapore will be taking???
LSVs are vunerable to light arms , however with it running so fast and yet with so much fire support , i have confidence that we can outfight the malaysian tanks. -
Ehh... I think NSF sucks
.. im a NSF, the way we fight already sloppy and slack... imagine we have ORD... reservist... haha... Sleep ZzzzzZzz 
-
Originally posted by zichuan:
will u be sloppy and slack in a real war?
Ehh... I think NSF [b]sucks .. im a NSF, the way we fight already sloppy and slack... imagine we have ORD... reservist... haha... Sleep ZzzzzZzz [/b] -
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 about.
The discipline of the SAF in general is considered very good. Note that unlike what you see in movies, every army in the world has sloppy and slack parts. US Marines, SAS commandoes, everyone. The vast majority of soldiers are lazy and afraid to die. The vast majority of units neglect training and are totally SNAFU. This is perfectly normal.
What counts is whether at the vital moment they will perform. When your unit needs to push during an exercise, do you follow orders and push? Do you possess the basic skills needed to fight? If you do, it makes you better than the average soldier, and makes up for all the chao genging, admin fuckups and other day-to-day stupidity at camp.
The SAF trains its men very well, better than the US Army, though not as well the USMC IMHO. The same CDOs you see sleeping in camp all day (they seem to have the most senang camp life) regularly perform better in exercises and tests than US SEALS and Special Forces. The same softie pilots at our airbases regularly top the class at Top Gun.
So just focus on your training. The army around you is better than you think it is, and as long as you do your part we will all pull through in a war. Make sure you know your stuff, and have the ability to use this knowledge. If you are an infantryman (like me), make sure you can use and care for your weapons and know how to move in a firefight. Build up your stamina, and learn to be alert at all times. Confidence in your training, condition and equipment will build courage. It may save your life someday.
Regarding our armor forces vs Malaysia's: I will believe they are getting MBTs when they actually get them, and I see them moving and firing. They have a tendency to buy equipment they are unable to support or effectively use, especially in the airforce. When the purchasing decision comes from the politicians rather than the armed forces, the chance of such a screwup is multiplied.
Even if they do get all of these MBTs operational, I do not think they are that much of a threat. MBTs need a lot of support to operate effectively, and without this support they are useless. I seriously doubt that Malaysian logistics are up to the task of keeping an MBT force fed with gas, ammunition and maintenance. Or that their engineers are ready with enough breaching and bridging equipment to prevent the force from being bogged down by mines or destroyed bridges and slaughtered from the air.
In addition, contrary to what many on this forum think, these tanks CAN be defeated by our AMX13SM1s and even our LAWs, let alone Spikes, Hellfires, mines or DPICM. You need to be much more careful with shot placement, which is not hard at the close ranges of likely battle. There isn't a tank in the world yet that can take a hit from an anti-tank weapon to a hatch, the engine grille without brewing up. There isn't yet a set of tracks that can take an ATW hit without resulting in a mobility kill. Even a hit that fails to penetrate may result in a vision kill. Tanks are far from invincible. They need to be deployed in sufficient numbers to be effective, since they will suffer attrition in battle no matter how thick their armor. The number that Malaysia is buying is too small.
And of course, we DO have MBTs of our own, more than Malaysia will even after this acquisition. -
thank you dkhoo.
i feel so appreciated -
LAWs?? No way... I doubt it. Those things actually have track skirting.
-
Yes, LAWs are not ideal against MBTs and are extremely risky. That said, the engine grille is still exposed at the rear, and a vision kill from the front is possible, though unlikely. In urban combat, a shot from above has a good chance of finding a hatch. The good thing is that our LAWs have no IR signature, flash or noise when they fire, and can be used from confined spaces. This means you can take cheap shots at tanks with a good chance of not being detected and fired upon in return. Enough cheap shots, and eventually one will find a weak spot.
-
Sounds optimistic on the SM1, if they can defeat MBTs alone, let alone with rest. Just to be on the side of caution, a few questions:Originally posted by dkhoo:In addition, contrary to what many on this forum think, these tanks CAN be defeated by our AMX13SM1s and even our LAWs, let alone Spikes, Hellfires, mines or DPICM. You need to be much more careful with shot placement, which is not hard at the close ranges of likely battle.
1) Is the SM1 then, a superior unit then their MBTs?
2) Can the SM1 shoot from the move?
3) Is the SM1's 75mm harder hitting and longer ranging then the 125mm? Can it penetrate the frontal armour of an MBT?
4) Given a choice, would our tankers be in an SM1, or a AGS light tank or even an MBT?
5) Can the SM1's armour stop 125mm rounds
6) Are mobility kills or shots to the weak part easily present in the heat of battle?
If we answer all these questions, we realize that any optimism over the SM1's holding against MBTs quickly fade. Save for a point blank ambush, the SM1's deployment against MBTs will be very limited and restrictive. While we are struggling to aim for the tracks or wait for them to present their rears, they can easily blast us knowing every single round will tear through us like hot wire through butter. Proper shot placement on a critical spot on a moving target in the heat of battle is extraordinary difficult, so much so that considering it to be an area of confidence when fighting MBTs is a little too much on the optimistic side. If it was so easy, we would have had lots of reports of Shermans defeating Tigers what so. Most of the time, if not virtually all, tank battles consist of quick aims at the target and snapping off a shot as fast as you can before he does the same to you. In the close quarter battle you described, would you rather be in an MBT or a tin-can SM1 tank? -
That is assuming they have no infantry support (extra eyes and suppressive fire) whatsoever, are content on grinding slowly through the city, and do not demolish or call down arty fire on every building they suspect holds a LAW position. Ever fired a LAW before? Finding a hatch at even a modest 25 meters is chancy. You anti tank tatics are a little too gurrelia and that said, takes the iniative away from our side, something which we cannot really afford to have much of. If you do not kill a tank, some infantryman or support would have seen the direction the rocket has zipped in from or worse, even seen the firer and guess if the diameter of the shell returning the favour will be bigger of smaller then your Armbrust?Originally posted by dkhoo:Yes, LAWs are not ideal against MBTs and are extremely risky. That said, the engine grille is still exposed at the rear, and a vision kill from the front is possible, though unlikely. In urban combat, a shot from above has a good chance of finding a hatch. The good thing is that our LAWs have no IR signature, flash or noise when they fire, and can be used from confined spaces. This means you can take cheap shots at tanks with a good chance of not being detected and fired upon in return. Enough cheap shots, and eventually one will find a weak spot. -
Bad ideas, unless they are actually shooting something that can hurt tanks, they'll ignore you. Worse, years of combat experience in parts of the world has shown that even moving at high speeds, tank MG rounds will have no trouble finding you, they just set up a wall of lead for you to drive into. And that thing has no armour whatsover, the crew are lunch meat.Originally posted by foxtrout8:LSVs are vunerable to light arms , however with it running so fast and yet with so much fire support , i have confidence that we can outfight the malaysian tanks.
While ATGMs are able to fight tanks, a determined, focused and mobile armoured trust can only be stopped by heavy metal on our side, and lots of hellfires from above. ATGMs take too long to reload that they are useful for reducing tank numbers, but rarely to stop entire tank advances at all. (Assuming the ATGMs actually penetrate) -
Urr right abt LSV being vunerable to a wall of leads. However currently it seem to mi that the LSV is given a large role in anti-tank warfare . Y do u think the LSV is armed with SPIKEs ? Maybe im not clear on my part of shooting and running. Y not add in surprise + shooting + then running , i believe the enemies will be caught off guard. As i say , anti-tank role will not be a one man show , fire suppport will be given by our RSAF , Bionix/ Ultras , the Artillery ..etc , i personnally to believe that the LSV is an extremely useful vehicle in taking up part of the SM-1's anti tank role.However it cannot fully replace the SM-1.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Bad ideas, unless they are actually shooting something that can hurt tanks, they'll ignore you. Worse, years of combat experience in parts of the world has shown that even moving at high speeds, tank MG rounds will have no trouble finding you, they just set up a wall of lead for you to drive into. And that thing has no armour whatsover, the crew are lunch meat.
While ATGMs are able to fight tanks, a determined, focused and mobile armoured trust can only be stopped by heavy metal on our side, and lots of hellfires from above. ATGMs take too long to reload that they are useful for reducing tank numbers, but rarely to stop entire tank advances at all. (Assuming the ATGMs actually penetrate)
*note : the Spike have a range of 4km , it can be fire in the cover of vegetations which make intial visual detection extremely low . -
not that i want to criticise your point lah... but questionable lor...Originally posted by foxtrout8:*note : the Spike have a range of 4km , it can be fire in the cover of vegetations which make intial visual detection extremely low .
how are u supposed to see 4 km away if u're hiding in thick vegetation?
i think this point assumes too many things... that u're occupying high ground overlooking an axis, that u have a field of fire of 180 degrees around and at least 4km forward... and u're just waiting around until they pass by.
this is possible only in defence and in the LSVs would least likely be deployed in that role.. This scenario is more realistic for an infantry ATGM team, not an LSV Spike team...
i think they're vulnerable too... i don't think the idea is for them to operate alone, but in tandem with other tracked elements to bolster the AT capabilities of the entire force. -
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...
hee hee... why not get some of these from the Russians?
RPO Shmel Infantry thermobaric weapon
http://www.kracik.com/me/w_shmel.html
-
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 -
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. -
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.Originally posted by Atobe: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. -
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.Originally posted by kopiosatu:frankly when i read this thread...
i get pek chek listening to pessimistic views regarding our armed forces...
...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.
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. -
Originally posted by CX:
That fat russian trooper looks like Sammu...
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 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.Originally posted by foxtrout8:Urr right abt LSV being vunerable to a wall of leads. However currently it seem to mi that the LSV is given a large role in anti-tank warfare . Y do u think the LSV is armed with SPIKEs ? Maybe im not clear on my part of shooting and running. Y not add in surprise + shooting + then running , i believe the enemies will be caught off guard. As i say , anti-tank role will not be a one man show , fire suppport will be given by our RSAF , Bionix/ Ultras , the Artillery ..etc , i personnally to believe that the LSV is an extremely useful vehicle in taking up part of the SM-1's anti tank role.However it cannot fully replace the SM-1.
*note : the Spike have a range of 4km , it can be fire in the cover of vegetations which make intial visual detection extremely low . -
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? -
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.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur: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.
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. -
what makes u think singapore doesn't have better technology.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur: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.
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 -
Originally posted by kopiosatu:
you pek chek what? its just a hypothetical discussion and a little bit of commensensical analysis based on open domain info what...
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?
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
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.