Wat liao eh......... Agree Hands Down man...~!Originally posted by CX:oh lay off that already! so tiring hearing u say the same crap over and over again...
yeah yeah... animal *growl* it gets a bit old and ridiculous when u keep repeating it...
i guess what everyone basically has to say about this is that we'll fight, and fight hard, but deep down, in the hearts of every citizen soldier, all they wanna do is finish the fight and go home to their families and THAT is not too much to ask for.
big pictures are painted by those not in the battlefield. all the soldier needs to do when in the field is not to look at the big picture, or the small picture, but to simply get the freaking job done so that those people pinning flags in the sand models can get on with their planning. a soldier needs focus, not perfect information.
too much unnecessary info can actually kill u...
that is right and one more thing... a carrier is just a BIG BIG FAT FAT target. it will just be overwhelm by anti ship missiles and decoy missiles.Originally posted by foxtrout8:There are advantages of owning a carrier.
1) it helps in force projection.
2) it immuned the risk of all vital base to be destroyed in an enemy offensive attack.
3) roles in humanitarian mission.
4) roles in forward supply depot.
however we must understand singapore's constraints and the disadvantage of owning a carrier.
1) a carrier is on big piece of metal which needs alot of pple to run.Not onli u need pple to run the carrier , u need pple to run the other ships which make a carrier fleet.
2) it expensive to keep a carrier operational. It will burn alot of tax payers money , then tax have to go up liao.....
even if singapore have the capacity to turn the ship automated , and have the money to run the fleet , then another problem is...
3) it will cause a arm race in the region!!!
I believe a LPD is enough for singapore's force projection ambition , however obtaining a carrier isnt impossible but quite a long way for us......
the fog of war may lift, but is the picture any clearer?Originally posted by Atobe:At the most basic level of warfare, it boils down to animal behavior to hunt and avoid being hunted; that calls for animal instinct.
"Growl" if that helps to boost your adrenaline, just be sure that you don't act rash.
An urban community such as ours, most have rarely even walk through the deep forests between the resevoirs. When actual exercises are conducted in the deep jungles of Brunei and Thailand, most get lost and adopt a cavalier attitude that can get themselves killed in a real situation.
This was the situation during the Confrontation with Indonesia, when a section from our Singapore Infantry Regiment was wiped out in Johor, except for one survivor.
If too much information actually kills a soldier, it is more due to the soldier's incapacity to differentiate what is needed for his own good, and what should be discarded.
If your premise hold, why would the Future Soldier concept even be developed at such a high cost?
The Future Soldier concept will allow the individual to be fully aware of the situation around him, and to assist him in getting through the "fog of war".
Had the technology been available, that section of infantry men could probably have been alive to tell of their experience of being ambused.
This is a far cry from the concept of "too much information kills".
You are certainly right, FOCUS and Agressiveness Intelligence of the Individual Soldier should be the key operative to achieve our mutual goal of getting the job done.Originally posted by CX:the fog of war may lift, but is the picture any clearer?
you are right... as information technology is being harnessed for the battlefield, it takes a lot of analytical skills and training for a soldier to decide what info is useful and which info is trash.
we don't know how this will play out yet because we have not used or seen it used on a massive scale yet. an inadequately trained soldier bombarded with this kind of info will certainly feel disorientated and make mistakes. but one who is trained will certainly try to exploit the techology to its fullest advantage.
ultimately, because the core of the system is not its capabilities, but its operators, we should refrain from making overly general statements which may make us look like jackasses eventually.
i stand by my point. in an intense combat enviornment, focus is more important than perfect information.
look... our points are not exactly mutually irreconciliable. timely information focused on that particular task is important. if there's a guy with a gun hiding in a corner waiting to grease me, i'll want to know and i can know with the help of sensors, thermal imagers and radio information.
but i'll prefer to be shielded from what the other coys are doing on the other side of the map until i need to, which is probably AFTER i clear this area because there's no way i can run over and help them immediately anyway!
ok... if they're in close proximity to your force, u'll probably need to know to avoid unfortunate incidence of friendly fire... but if they're several map grids away, i don't think its that pressing anymore...Originally posted by Atobe:You are certainly right, FOCUS and Agressiveness Intelligence of the Individual Soldier should be the key operative to achieve our mutual goal of getting the job done.
However, I would rather that you not be shielded from what the other coys are doing on the other side of the map, as I would prefer you to know where I am located.
It will only be for our mutual benefit, that in the heat of the battle, with all the smoke from intended cover or burnt out equipment, both of us should not mistake each other as unfriendlies when viewed at a distance, and take each other out by mistake.
not so much the range, but the modes of activating them... calling arty for instance... how dumb can u be to call in arty at precisely the square that u, or your sister units are in?Originally posted by Atobe:What is the range of some of our Heavy Weapons ?