Should SAF be Brigade-based or Division-based?
-
The 10th mountain unit is supose to operate in mountainous terrain where you dun find any heavy AFV & you also not operate heavy AFV yourself in those terrain, that why they r light! They r a specialised breed operating in a unique terrain.Originally posted by |-|05|:A unit like the 10th mountain has most of it's troops infantry with out afv's but they move around on trucks but dismount near a target and proceed on foot.However the 10th also has an mechanized bde in it for the added firepower.That is how our current divisions are organized.What you are proposing is a fully fledged mechanized division!
The SAF infantry r not specaised breed rather suppose to be able to operate in both jungle as well as urban enviroment. You r actually making a very bad comparsion. -
no....the 10th mountain is called such by name only......They are the 2nd wave of troops to be moved into position after the RDF of the 82nd and 101st Airborne....do not let the names fool you.....they are just for unit history sake.Originally posted by gary1910:The 10th mountain unit is supose to operate in mountainous terrain where you dun find any heavy AFV & you also not operate heavy AFV yourself in those terrain, that why they r light! They r a specialised breed operating in a unique terrain.
The SAF infantry r not specaised breed rather suppose to be able to operate in both jungle as well as urban enviroment. You r actually making a very bad comparsion. -
I think not ,they should also be able to fight in other enviroment but their speciality is in the mountainous terrain just like the SAS has a special regiment to operate in mountain tooOriginally posted by |-|05|:no....the 10th mountain is called such by name only......They are the 2nd wave of troops to be moved into position after the RDF of the 82nd and 101st Airborne....do not let the names fool you.....they are just for unit history sake. -
Taken from the official 10th mountain website
To meet the ArmyÂ’s requirements to train large numbers of replacements the 10th was reactivated as a training division on July 1, 1948, at Fort Riley, Kansas. It didnÂ’t retain its wartime designation as a Mountain Division and as result lost its "Mountain" tab. The Division had the mission of processing and training new soldiers for service with other Army units. The outbreak of the Korean Conflict in June 1950, enlarged this mission. A total of 123,000 men completed basic training with the 10th during the period 1948-1953.
Website is here http://www.drum.army.mil/history/divisionhistory.htm
The Division was officially reactivated on February 13, 1985, at Fort Drum, New York as the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry). The division commander after reactivation was Brigadier General William S. Carpenter. The 10th was the first division of any kind formed by the Army since 1975 and the first based in the Northeast US since World War II. The 10th Mountain Division (LI) was designed to meet a wide range of worldwide infantry-intensive contingency missions. Equipment design was oriented toward reduced size and weight for reasons of both strategic and tactical mobility.
It operates much the same way as the 25th infantry division
They are currently the only 3 regular US army divisions that are still light infantry.The rest are Mechanized Infantry.The 82nd and 101st are the 2 Airborne left.
Edit:the 7th infantry is also light i think....i'm guessing since they're website is not really good and they only have 1 armoured bde instead of something like 3 for the mechanized troops. -
The US no longer has that kind of troops actually.All infantry especially the Light Infanty divisions are are trained to fight mountainous terrain.But i think the 7th infantry has taken over that role though i am not sure....since their website is not really good.Originally posted by gary1910:I think not ,they should also be able to fight in other enviroment but their speciality is in the mountainous terrain just like the SAS has a special regiment to operate in mountain too
But they are stationed in a mountain base so i'm guessing here. -
someone posted about basing almost all infantry units on some kind of vehicle (assuming i understood correctly)
was wondering, since NSmen constitute the main part of SAF, won't the SAF end up with loads of vehicles sitting around doing nothing during peacetime?
however, i do agree that infantry units should be mechanised as far as possible, unless they're used for defensive purposes only and dun need mobility, else getting troops to march to march to the fight will just lower their effectiveness unnecessarily. . .hmm, suddenly wondered, are there enough trucks to move all the troops that will be used in offence? -
Deleted : Double post
-
That what I have suggested , I believe Mindef is thinking the same thing, why I said that is becos we already has 300 BV206(not armoured), and from certain web site that said that ST is going to build another 500 of Armoured Broncos for SAF.Originally posted by laser51088:someone posted about basing almost all infantry units on some kind of vehicle (assuming i understood correctly)
was wondering, since NSmen constitute the main part of SAF, won't the SAF end up with loads of vehicles sitting around doing nothing during peacetime?
however, i do agree that infantry units should be mechanised as far as possible, unless they're used for defensive purposes only and dun need mobility, else getting troops to march to march to the fight will just lower their effectiveness unnecessarily. . .hmm, suddenly wondered, are there enough trucks to move all the troops that will be used in offence?
Do we really need so many armoured Broncos/BY206s for logistics, normal 3 tonner truck should suffice. What do you guys think? -
Well cost would be one factor....another factor will be how useful will all that AFV's be when you gotta go into the jungle and weed the enemy out?I mean it wont be cost effective to outfit all your units with afv's only to have 1/2 of them not used during both peace time and wartime.I agree though that we need more AI bde or reg instead of the current 2?
-
Just to add a bit info on the BV206 & the Bronco.
The 300 BV206 that we have is not armoured & suppose to be abled to carry 12 soldiers including crews.
The Swendish company is also selling the armoured BV206S version which are used as a APC, I believe the British has just ordered some.
Assuming abt half r used as a troop carrier maybe even more, says 150 of them and could carry abt 11 men minus the driver per veh. They could ferry abt 1650 men.
But our ATTC Bronco is amoured & could be also be uses as APC. If what reported as correct , SAF is getting 500 of them. They could carry abt 16 soldier plus driver. Let say we take away the driver , we will hv 15 soldier per Bronco and 500 Bronos will be total of 7500 soldiers.
Therefore with 150 BV206 & 500 Bronco it is abled to tranport abt 9150 men
Our current Infantry Battlelion is abt 600 men & therefore 1800 men/ Bde. 6 Bde will be abt 10,800 men.
If you take away the support coy which mostly has their own vehicles you take away abt 100 men per unit,
Therefore the 6 Bde will have 9000 men that need transport.
In conclusion , our Bronco & BV206 will most probably able to support the six infantry Bdes that we have assumming my number is right.
Please comment since I am making lot of assumption.
Others:T
he PDF file abt AFV with especially pg 44 on the Bronco.
http://www.armada.ch/01-6/complete.pdf -
Besides the Broncos - there is the Terrex being developed as well. My own opinion is that the wheeled vehicles (Terrex) will support infantry units. The Terrex vehicles are not organic to the infantry units, but are attached and used according to the required mission. My unit already operates in a similar fashion.Originally posted by gary1910:That what I have suggested , I believe Mindef is thinking the same thing, why I said that is becos we already has 300 BV206(not armoured), and from certain web site that said that ST is going to build another 500 of Armoured Broncos for SAF.
Do we really need so many armoured Broncos/BY206s for logistics, normal 3 tonner truck should suffice. What do you guys think?
For the Broncos - my opinion is that these should go to amoured and rapid deployment forces. The British Royal Marine Commandos are starting to receive similar tracked vehicles for future rapid deployments. Not all Broncos are personel vehicles - there are logistics or ambulance, motar carriers, etc.
Just my personel views only. -
I saw something similar once, on public roads. But was partial covered, with the wind blowing it up for a short while.Originally posted by spencer99:I know what I see. This is not something that i heard people see or think I see. I actually saw two SPH mounted on trailers (sp?) on Singapore roads.
The Trailers are stopped in front of Traffic lights and I had a very very good look at them. -
That is what I am saying all along, currently infantry units is just simply under powered & need support from attached Armour units for certain mission.Originally posted by bcoy:The Terrex vehicles are not organic to the infantry units, but are attached and used according to the required mission. My unit already operates in a similar fashion.
This imply to have one or two battlelion to be split up to support the infantry which in turn reduce the operational effectiveness for our SAB.They should not be attached but be organic so to improve cohensiveness & quicker response to situation when the need arise & also more be autonomous for our infantry bde.
And the same time our SAB will not have to reduce their operational effectiveness by supporting our current ineffective infantry units in certain mission. -
I get what you mean - however some minor points - although the armour support units for infantry units are not organic, they are permantly attached. Also, these support units are not from any SAB from what I understand - they are a dedicated support unit by itself. So SAB will not have their effectiveness reduced. Unlike armoured (mechanised) units, infantry units do not use armour transport fulltime. Armour transport are used when only when missions requires it. Vehicles are not suitable for certain terrain or tactical "quietness". Basically they are used for transport and covering support fire. But yes - these vehicles do carry more firepower than light infantry units. I'm quite sure that future developments will be interesting for military nuts, with the Terrex LAV. For me at least - I've been on the navy's fast craft/LST, airforce choppers, and now light armour support.Originally posted by gary1910:That is what I am saying all along, currently infantry units is just simply under powered & need support from attached Armour units for certain mission.
This imply to have one or two battlelion to be split up to support the infantry which in turn reduce the operational effectiveness for our SAB.They should not be attached but be organic so to improve cohensiveness & quicker response to situation when the need arise & also more be autonomous for our infantry bde.
And the same time our SAB will not have to reduce their operational effectiveness by supporting our current ineffective infantry units in certain mission. -
On a side note - Malaysia is keen to develop a single combined arms division, based on an armoured brigade, a mechanised brigade and an infantry brigade. The armoured brigade is your traditional armour unit (more tanks), the mechanised brigade - more IFVs, and the infantry units will have some wheeled light armour support. Of course - this is on paper only at the moment.
-
"Therefore the 6 Bde will have 9000 men that need transport."
er... i dun think all the 9000 men need to rely on land transport rite? i know for sure that i'll either take a chopper or go by 'boat' (sampan? )... hee hee hee
"there is the Terrex being developed as well"
btw, r we really getting the Terrex? i know that it is made by ST, but is the army using it?
I prefer to fly any time.... -
Well you have not only confirmed to what I believe, the SAF has already started to restructure the light infantry Bde.Originally posted by bcoy:I get what you mean - however some minor points - although the armour support units for infantry units are not organic, they are permantly attached. Also, these support units are not from any SAB from what I understand - they are a dedicated support unit by itself. So SAB will not have their effectiveness reduced. Unlike armoured (mechanised) units, infantry units do not use armour transport fulltime. Armour transport are used when only when missions requires it. Vehicles are not suitable for certain terrain or tactical "quietness". Basically they are used for transport and covering support fire. But yes - these vehicles do carry more firepower than light infantry units. I'm quite sure that future developments will be interesting for military nuts, with the Terrex LAV. For me at least - I've been on the navy's fast craft/LST, airforce choppers, and now light armour support.
Since Armour Support units(ASU) are permanetly attached to your unit maybe becos they r under the direct control of the infantry Bde HQ and been sent out to be attached to units under its wing.
My view of restructuring of SAF infantry Bde is just that , to have better superior firepower & if neccessary amour protection for foot soldier when need arises and at the same time without losing the stealth, and "lightness" of the light infantry in the jungle enviroment.
Your suggestion is good one on the Terrex, lightly armoured, good mobility and should I suggest armed with at least 105mm gun for firesupport/antitank.(please note our neighbours are getting more AFV and some r with ERA)
I am not advocating for them to be restuctured to be fully mechanised forces becos mechanised forces r meant to fight in less forested and even urban enviroment. They r not really suitable for thick jungle terrain.
But I did recommened to have some kind transport for our infantry, these transport r used during the wartime to increase mobility and keep our soldier as freah as possible b4 the fight. They to be transported to as near as possible to the frontline then they debus become foot soldier again.
These transport r not IFV to be used in the frontline.
So what is the best transport available, I suggested Bronco as a troop carrier not a IFV, they r simply to thin skin to fight in armour warfare.
Why Bronco , they r all terrain vehicles & fully amphibious, lightly armoured for protection against small arms & shell fragments & yet extremely mobile in all terrain.
Some of you guys saying that they will be useless after they have tranported the troops, actually no, they will then be reverted to resupply veh and keep on supporting the troop whether for transport & supply, just like our 3 tonner do during our training.
But a truck is not mobile in cross country enough & not amphibious to do the task becos the kind terrain we could encountered in the region . -
I get what you mean apart from not wanting to switch them to a mechanized unit.I mean you're advocating APC's,IFV'sand AFV's for our infantry.That would make them mechanized infantry...throw in the SAB already in there and you'd get a fully functional Mechanized Division which is good since we already have the guards to in the light infantry role.And us having mechanized infantry is all good if we can afford.However i think we should retain at least 1 light infantry division or 1 free organic SAB since the guards lack any armour in their formation.Originally posted by gary1910:Well you have not only confirmed to what I believe, the SAF has already started to restructure the light infantry Bde.
Since Armour Support units(ASU) are permanetly attached to your unit maybe becos they r under the direct control of the infantry Bde HQ and been sent out to be attached to units under its wing.
My view of restructuring of SAF infantry Bde is just that , to have better superior firepower & if neccessary amour protection for foot soldier when need arises and at the same time without losing the stealth, and "lightness" of the light infantry in the jungle enviroment.
Your suggestion is good one on the Terrex, lightly armoured, good mobility and should I suggest armed with at least 105mm gun for firesupport/antitank.(please note our neighbours are getting more AFV and some r with ERA)
I am not advocating for them to be restuctured to be fully mechanised forces becos mechanised forces r meant to fight in less forested and even urban enviroment. They r not really suitable for thick jungle terrain.
But I did recommened to have some kind transport for our infantry, these transport r used during the wartime to increase mobility and keep our soldier as freah as possible b4 . They to be transported to as near to the frontline then they debus become foot soldier again.
These transport r not IFV to be used in the frontline.
So what is the best transport available, I suggested Bronco as a troop carrier not a IFV, they r simply to thin skin to fight in armour warfare.
Why Bronco , they r all terrain vehicles & fully amphibious, lightly armoured for protection against small arms & shell fragments & yet extremely mobile in all terrain.
Some of you guys saying that they will be useless after they have tranported the troops, actually no, they will then be reverted to resupply veh and keep on supporting the troop whether for transport & supply, just like our 3 tonner do during our training.
But a truck is not mobile in cross country enough & not amphibious to do the task becos the kind terrain we could encountered in the region .
Hmm....after saying all that it does lead me to wonder....
Currently the infantry divisions are moving more towards being mechanized(apart frm the lack of strong armour) while we have the light infantry guards and a free SAB not attached to anything.....hmm.....prelude to leaving 1 light infantry while swtiching everything else to mech? -
I am not advocating a full mechanised div at all.Originally posted by |-|05|:I get what you mean apart from not wanting to switch them to a mechanized unit.I mean you're advocating APC's,IFV'sand AFV's for our infantry.That would make them mechanized infantry...throw in the SAB already in there and you'd get a fully functional Mechanized Division which is good since we already have the guards to in the light infantry role.And us having mechanized infantry is all good if we can afford.However i think we should retain at least 1 light infantry division or 1 free organic SAB since the guards lack any armour in their formation.
Hmm....after saying all that it does lead me to wonder....
Currently the infantry divisions are moving more towards being mechanized(apart frm the lack of strong armour) while we have the light infantry guards and a free SAB not attached to anything.....hmm.....prelude to leaving 1 light infantry while swtiching everything else to mech?
Actually what I am adovcating to have at least one light infantry Bde with slightly better firepower & mobility in the Div.
They r not meant to fight like the Mechanised Bde, what I am suggesting is more like fire supporting role for the wheeled AFV rather than a cohensive mechanised assault which are totally different tactics.
Armour Infantry & light infantry r trained employing different tactics to achieve their objectives. So having a few fire support vehicles attached to your units does not change from light infantry to be armour infantry just like that. -
You seem to know quite a bit - what you describe is what my unit is doing - more or less. I'm from a Guards unit actually, but will ROD soon. Like I said - the future could be interesting for military nuts.Originally posted by gary1910:I am not advocating a full mechanised div at all.
Actually what I am adovcating to have at least one light infantry Bde with slightly better firepower & mobility in the Div.
They r not meant to fight like the Mechanised Bde, what I am suggesting is more like fire supporting role for the wheeled AFV rather than a cohensive mechanised assault which are totally different tactics.
Armour Infantry & light infantry r trained employing different tactics to achieve their objectives. So having a few fire support vehicles attached to your units does not change from light infantry to be armour infantry just like that. -
Eventhough that most ppl actually dismiss the capability MAF armour under current inventory but I still feel they could pack quite a punch.Let me descride their current inventory:Originally posted by bcoy:On a side note - Malaysia is keen to develop a single combined arms division, based on an armoured brigade, a mechanised brigade and an infantry brigade. The armoured brigade is your traditional armour unit (more tanks), the mechanised brigade - more IFVs, and the infantry units will have some wheeled light armour support. Of course - this is on paper only at the moment.
No.------Model
184------V100/150 Wheeled 4x4 armed with 20mm APC
140------Panhard AML 60/90 Wheeled 4x4 mostly the 90mm gun
37--------Panhard M3 Wheeled 4x4 APC
459------Condor Wheeled 4x4 APC with 20mm
162------Sibmas AFSV 90mm Wheeled 6x6 recently upgraded
26--------Scopion 90 tracked light tank with 90mm
25--------Stormer tracked IFV with 20mm
110-------KIFV tracked Korean modified M113
Under ordered:
211-------Turkish ACV300 modified M113
48---------Polish modified T-72, PT91 with ERA & 125mm MBT
It was rumour that some or maybe all the Panhard will be retired soon when the ACV300 is delivered. Discounting the Panhards the future inventory is abt 643 4x4 wheeled APC,162 6x6 wheeled fire support IFV, 26 light tanks, 346 tracked IFV & lastly 48 MBT.
Total of 1225 AFV with 236 of them with 90mm & above guns. -
Originally posted by gary1910:
They are also hoping to replace all the 4x4 and 6x6 with a new armoured vehicle, maybe a 6x6 or 8x8.
It was rumour that some or maybe all the Panhard will be retired soon when the ACV300 is delivered. [b]Discounting the Panhards the future inventory is abt 643 4x4 wheeled APC,162 6x6 wheeled fire support IFV, 26 light tanks, 346 tracked IFV & lastly 48 MBT.
Total of 1225 AFV with 236 of them with 90mm & above guns. .
[/b] -
Their 6x6 fire support vehicles Sibmas were just recently been upgraded , so should be still around for quite some time.Originally posted by bcoy:They are also hoping to replace all the 4x4 and 6x6 with a new armoured vehicle, maybe a 6x6 or 8x8.
But their 4x4 veh is just simply too high a groud pressure to operate in a swampy terrain. That's why all new wheeled AFV is at least 6x6, mostly 8x8 like our Terrex.
-
Thanks, I am just a military nuts just like u. Actually 2 PDF also has a ASU in term of V200 Veh. Some of the older Guards units has been posting into 2 PDF is in this role.Originally posted by bcoy:You seem to know quite a bit - what you describe is what my unit is doing - more or less. I'm from a Guards unit actually, but will ROD soon. Like I said - the future could be interesting for military nuts.
AI or any1 whose have came out from SOA know the differernt between the infantry & armour infantry which is one the most siong support arms formation in the army.
Those from armour eat, sleep and fight with their AFV & even die in it. They have to maintain , change tracks ,oils etc Their AFV is like another "personnal weapon", their baby. They dun just get their black berets by just having a few AFVs in their unit, They earned it. -
I know - I am from that unit.Originally posted by gary1910:Thanks, I am just a military nuts just like u. Actually 2 PDF also has a ASU in term of V200 Veh. Some of the older Guards units has been posting into 2 PDF is in this role.
.