Direct and indirect action for reconnaisance missions in SAF
-
Is there a distinction between combat and non-combat recce that our BRC/scout/LRRP troopers learn about and practise?
By definition I mean combat recce to be seek out the enemy, locate it and destroy the objective. For non-combat recce I mean to do the same as combat recce but must remain undetected even in the face of enemy if they are treading/patrolling across the beaten tracks of the recce trooper.
So it's about the scope of the mission for combat and non-combat recce. From there, we can discuss further about the tools of the trade which our troopers use to execute these missions, e.g. types of weapons, vehicles etc...
Further anecdote for weapons/vehicles for non-combat recce, would believe a measure of acoustic signature reduction is actively employed, such as silenced weapons and electric drive for vehicles etc.... -
Combat recce as you have defined it, is rare. The primary focus of reconnaisance is to gather intel for their own side, not stir up a hornet's nest...
A recce team's firepower (4 carbines and a SAW) simply isn't enough to overwhelm an enemy platoon, let alone a company.
However, recce teams can engage targets with artillery support if the F.O. is with them or if they are F.O.-trained. They can also set remote ambushes (meant more to slow down pursuers), but really, recce can't do much on their own. The key to survival is simply to remain low-key.... -
Which is why precisely I would state the fundamental differences between combat & non-combat recce. The former is definitely one in which the force can deploy and engage targets of opportunity with impunity, similar in concept to US' deployment of A-10 Thuderbolt 2 during Desert Storm 1 and 2 over Iraqi territory with virtually no fear of overwhelming enemy resistance. So combat recce, no doubt serving primary functions of pure recce, are definitely armed to the teeth with the intention of wreaking havoc on enemy forces (even larger than their own organic strength if need be, and yet still being able to absorb some kind of attrition rate)Originally posted by Tango1:Combat recce as you have defined it, is rare. The primary focus of reconnaisance is to gather intel for their own side, not stir up a hornet's nest... A recce team's firepower (4 carbines and a SAW) simply isn't enough to overwhelm an enemy platoon, let alone a company.
However, recce teams can engage targets with artillery support if the F.O. is with them or if they are F.O.-trained. They can also set remote ambushes (meant more to slow down pursuers), but really, recce can't do much on their own. The key to survival is simply to remain low-key....
This is a very new concept if not very commonly practised. Which is why the tools of the trade that relate to such a craft would very likely be very special indeed in order to carry out such missions. -
strike LRRP, is a form of "search and destroy" recon. an example is the USSF (green beret), where one team of SF consist of 12 men.Originally posted by panzerjager:Is there a distinction between combat and non-combat recce that our BRC/scout/LRRP troopers learn about and practise?
By definition I mean combat recce to be seek out the enemy, locate it and destroy the objective. For non-combat recce I mean to do the same as combat recce but must remain undetected even in the face of enemy if they are treading/patrolling across the beaten tracks of the recce trooper.
So it's about the scope of the mission for combat and non-combat recce. From there, we can discuss further about the tools of the trade which our troopers use to execute these missions, e.g. types of weapons, vehicles etc...
Further anecdote for weapons/vehicles for non-combat recce, would believe a measure of acoustic signature reduction is actively employed, such as silenced weapons and electric drive for vehicles etc....
a couple of teams can be co-ordinate for search n destory.
this was one of the method used to destroy the scout ssm during desert storm. -
u mean scuds ?
-
I pre-suppose that the LRRP troop within the commandos have this role among their mission types...Originally posted by lion02:strike LRRP, is a form of "search and destroy" recon. an example is the USSF (green beret), where one team of SF consist of 12 men.
a couple of teams can be co-ordinate for search n destory.
this was one of the method used to destroy the scout ssm during desert storm.
Then again, with advances in targeting platform tehnology, I believe the use of SF teams for laser target designation of time-sensitive targets deep inside enemy territory have been obsoleted with the new application of robots (air/ground) to perform the same tasks ?
What I really mean is normal organic army forces tasked with recce roles. And if the mission calls for combat recce, all they'll do is up-gun, up-ammo and up-equipment, go all out in the expected hotzone and wait or hunt for the enemy to eliminate them with or without support from friendlies....note: all this done by normal recce troops, not necessarily SF. So the capabilities of the normal units are as good as SF in the general sense. Then that would mean even more will be expected of the real SF - they can do better than that. Can they ? -
i dunno abt the lrrp and brc, but for scouts we are not supposed to contact the enemy...
-
although technologies nowadays r very advance, but not all targets can be identified by satellite, uav, especially dummy targets, which r very commonly used. hence, ground troops have to be used to confirm these targets.Originally posted by panzerjager:I pre-suppose that the LRRP troop within the commandos have this role among their mission types...
Then again, with advances in targeting platform tehnology, I believe the use of SF teams for laser target designation of time-sensitive targets deep inside enemy territory have been obsoleted with the new application of robots (air/ground) to perform the same tasks ?
What I really mean is normal organic army forces tasked with recce roles. And if the mission calls for combat recce, all they'll do is up-gun, up-ammo and up-equipment, go all out in the expected hotzone and wait or hunt for the enemy to eliminate them with or without support from friendlies....note: all this done by normal recce troops, not necessarily SF. So the capabilities of the normal units are as good as SF in the general sense. Then that would mean even more will be expected of the real SF - they can do better than that. Can they ?
don't expect to much of the sf. the sf r call sf because they r able to operate in hostile area at a longer distance, longer duration, without support.
one of the common missions for sf (eg green beret, seals, sas...) r, they r usually deployed before a war even started, to gether information on targets of opportunity, target confirmation, troop movements. they have to destory certain targets on the spot, just before H hour, if their higher authority thinks that there's a need.
normal recon troops usually don't contact the emengy. -
Under normal circumstances, a LRRP team's weapons load is barely sufficient for getting away from the enemy if contacted - the rule therefore is to avoid contact.
As far as I can remember, the last time LRRP teams were used for search-and-destroy missions was in Vietnam. In the Gulf war, the teams sent out on Scud-hunting missions were not strictly recce teams. If you read accounts by guys like Peter Radcliffe and Andy McNab, their orders were to destroy the Scuds themselves, and if the target was too large or well-defended, to call in air strikes. Radcliffe's team inserted with their Pinkies and drove about destroying targets. Their orders would define them more as strike teams than as recce teams. -
Lrrp teams avoid contacts coz it's not their roles.Originally posted by panzerjager:Which is why precisely I would state the fundamental differences between combat & non-combat recce. The former is definitely one in which the force can deploy and engage targets of opportunity with impunity, similar in concept to US' deployment of A-10 Thuderbolt 2 during Desert Storm 1 and 2 over Iraqi territory with virtually no fear of overwhelming enemy resistance. So combat recce, no doubt serving primary functions of pure recce, are definitely armed to the teeth with the intention of wreaking havoc on enemy forces (even larger than their own organic strength if need be, and yet still being able to absorb some kind of attrition rate)
This is a very new concept if not very commonly practised. Which is why the tools of the trade that relate to such a craft would very likely be very special indeed in order to carry out such missions.
We have special LATD teams thou....who will seek out targets to be destroy by coordinating wif the air force. Simply mark out the targets for friendly forces aircraft to blow off using deivces. -
It is just a matter of definition of what a "recce" is.
In Singapore context, a recce is basically to "look" and find out and is not expected to be direcly engage and is armed only for self-defence.
The combat recce that was suggested in more a "direct-action" kind of role which I think should be done by Commandos or maybe Guards (heli-insert/Light STrike Veh) in the SAF.
In the US Army, the direct action roles is mainly done by the US Rangers which is suppose to specialize in this role. the Green Berets (US Spec Forces) specializes in corporating with "indigneous" forces like for eg in the Afghan war it act as a liason with the anti-Taliban Afghan fractions. It is not meant for a direct action force.
The British uses the SAS for strategic recon roles (LRRPs) as well as direct action. For example inthe '82 gulf war, the SAS attacked a airfield to destroy many of the heli and a/c based there. -
to my understanding, there's a few types of lrrp... strike lrrp is for search n destory.
during my training with the green beret, we understand that lrrp is also one of their missions, either normal lrrp, which does not need to contact the enemy, n, strike lrrp, which is search n destory. -
Lion, what's the equipment load for a strike LRRP mission? All the usual LRRP gear, plus full load of ammo and charges?
-
depands on mission's target n duration. most load r from charges n ration.Originally posted by Gedanken:Lion, what's the equipment load for a strike LRRP mission? All the usual LRRP gear, plus full load of ammo and charges?
could go up to 60kg, for the green berets. -
Ah, OK. During my time, besides yam seng lessons at Europa at 4 in the morning, we didn't train with the Green Berets.
-
we're the 2nd batch to train with them. combine training, follow by airborne operation. dam solid guys, some had seen real actions..Originally posted by Gedanken:Ah, OK. During my time, besides yam seng lessons at Europa at 4 in the morning, we didn't train with the Green Berets. 
1st batch r from 1st coy. -
Further question:Originally posted by Gedanken:Lion, what's the equipment load for a strike LRRP mission? All the usual LRRP gear, plus full load of ammo and charges?
What is the typical target priority-lethal intent per target for the mission? This translates to the scale or extent of damage intended for the respective target, e.g. lightweight remote charges for parked aircraft, to rip-chorded duffel bag charges for enemy POL depots etc...?
Other pointers to equipment mix - does the inventory include anti-material weapons like the Baratt M82 .50 cal or 20 mm rifle from DENEL, at least these are the ones I can think of. These should be able to take out time-sensitive targets at range from under cover.
Mission type - include assasinations of key military/political figures of the enemy, best portrayed by the Russian Spetnaz anti-VIP squads?
What about long-range recce-to-strike with NBC capability, i.e. search-and-destroy missions in contaminated environment
Lastly, insertion means inclusive of submarine deployment via swimmer delivery vehicles, sea skimmers or even more covert armoured sea-bed tracked vehicles like those employed by Soviet naval infantry against Sweden/Norway? -
Whoa - that's a lot of gear to lug along.Originally posted by panzerjager:Further question:
What is the typical target priority-lethal intent per target for the mission? This translates to the scale or extent of damage intended for the respective target, e.g. lightweight remote charges for parked aircraft, to rip-chorded duffel bag charges for enemy POL depots etc...?
Other pointers to equipment mix - does the inventory include anti-material weapons like the Baratt M82 .50 cal or 20 mm rifle from DENEL, at least these are the ones I can think of. These should be able to take out time-sensitive targets at range from under cover.
Mission type - include assasinations of key military/political figures of the enemy, best portrayed by the Russian Spetnaz anti-VIP squads?
What about long-range recce-to-strike with NBC capability, i.e. search-and-destroy missions in contaminated environment
Lastly, insertion means inclusive of submarine deployment via swimmer delivery vehicles, sea skimmers or even more covert armoured sea-bed tracked vehicles like those employed by Soviet naval infantry against Sweden/Norway?
-
me not strike LRRP, so not able to answer yr question.Originally posted by panzerjager:Further question:
What is the typical target priority-lethal intent per target for the mission? This translates to the scale or extent of damage intended for the respective target, e.g. lightweight remote charges for parked aircraft, to rip-chorded duffel bag charges for enemy POL depots etc...?
Other pointers to equipment mix - does the inventory include anti-material weapons like the Baratt M82 .50 cal or 20 mm rifle from DENEL, at least these are the ones I can think of. These should be able to take out time-sensitive targets at range from under cover.
Mission type - include assasinations of key military/political figures of the enemy, best portrayed by the Russian Spetnaz anti-VIP squads?
What about long-range recce-to-strike with NBC capability, i.e. search-and-destroy missions in contaminated environment
Lastly, insertion means inclusive of submarine deployment via swimmer delivery vehicles, sea skimmers or even more covert armoured sea-bed tracked vehicles like those employed by Soviet naval infantry against Sweden/Norway?
go to those unoffical USSF web-site, u may able to find ur answers there. -
Don't have to...Originally posted by lion02:me not strike LRRP, so not able to answer yr question.
go to those unoffical USSF web-site, u may able to find ur answers there.
What is more wanting is the exact nature/scope/scale of missions that could be executed by our own combat recce troopers.
From the equipment standpoint, hear that commandos themselves are quite well to do considering the comparative lack of experience of our SAF (read: don't know what to expect in real-life ops, even though train regularly with big shots around the world)
Well to do as in hearing that their related armouries in the local defence sector include FN Herstal P-90 and HK G-11 typically. Also, interestingly, when TCS aired the Navy drama series starring Desmond Shen and Chen Tianwen (back in the late 80s to early 90s if I remember), I remember in the episode where pirates hijacked a pleasure craft and resulted in response from Naval Diving Unit. In the ensuing gun battle with the pirates, Chen Tian wen as one of the lead assaulters was observed to tote a Calico M960 9mm SMG - something really unknown at the time if confirmed. -
panzerjager,Originally posted by panzerjager:Don't have to...
What is more wanting is the exact nature/scope/scale of missions that could be executed by our own combat recce troopers.
some information r rather sensitive to discuss here... u know what i mean....
on the saf/mindef standpoint of view, saf does not have the capabilities of lrrp operations...
although some (or should i say alot) ppl knows whats going on... -
Anyhow,Originally posted by lion02:panzerjager,
some information r rather sensitive to discuss here... u know what i mean....
on the saf/mindef standpoint of view, saf does not have the capabilities of lrrp operations...
although some (or should i say alot) ppl knows whats going on...
Whatever is unofficial, can be just said as if plucked from the air, so does not hold water any ways.
But some interesting facts or observation that may or may not be confirmed because they were based on first/second hand accounts.... such as:
- huge 'secretive' event surrounding Southern Islands in period of '94 - '95, in that naval craft had cordoned off substantial seaspace around the islands and enormous explosion took place on one of islands - descript of some kind of mass non-nuclear device, not unlike fuel-air explosive (FAE) or at least some kind of ballistic missile or artillery rocket testing. At around that time the Straits Time Comment/Perspective section ran an article depicting 'arms race' in SouthEast Asia, with a lot of interest in FAE weapons and rocket artillery (e.g. Smerch) particularly from Russia/ex-Soviet bloc. Cited un-named regional country. Some telling signs as to why we also have started to incorporate Russian missile technology in our orbat....from Igla to even SA-10 Grumble in view of replacing I-HAWK, due to the fact that retirement of Bloodhound SAMs had left us without long-range protection of airspace
- direct account of experimentation with applying jet skis for military purposes, with personnel from water bridging engineers as the pioneers in trying out the concept
- testing of soldier's helmets with embedded electronics and embedded antenna for comms
- remote operation of armoured vehicles via telemetry