A very simple Qn about the SAF..
-
For those who have extensive knowledge and have served in the SAF
Is the Singapore Armed Forces capable to fight a protracted conflict or does it use tactics similar to the Soviets (or Russia) that capitalises on initial all-out attacks? And maybe some statements to back up.
Thanks. -
i think the saf's doctrines are based on the limitations we face as a nation - space, resources.Originally posted by Jazzswing:For those who have extensive knowledge and have served in the SAF
Is the Singapore Armed Forces capable to fight a protracted conflict or does it use tactics similar to the Soviets (or Russia) that capitalises on initial all-out attacks? And maybe some statements to back up.
Thanks.
hence it is due to our limitations that i suspect we haf a short war doctrine. and to be able to gain control of situation in a short span of time, an all-out pre-emptive move cannot be ruled out. -
"Is the Singapore Armed Forces capable to fight a protracted conflict or does it use tactics similar to the Soviets (or Russia) that capitalises on initial all-out attacks? And maybe some statements to back up. "
No think we follow more on the isreal tactics, as the situation is the same, we lack the depth. -
Originally posted by Jazzswing:For those who have extensive knowledge and have served in the SAF
Is the Singapore Armed Forces capable to fight a protracted conflict or does it use tactics similar to the Soviets (or Russia) that capitalises on initial all-out attacks? And maybe some statements to back up.
Thanks.
Yes, we do not have strategic depth and self-sufficiency in water and food and so this makes a lightning war, perhaps even a preemptive war, necessary. However, over the years, we have become a Fortress Singapore. See this thread: http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=76149 Huxley pointed out that the strength of our civil defence force, provision of air raid shelters, hardening of key assets like ammo depots and aircraft shelters and now, Newater, allows Singapore to absorb a first strike before retailating. This is also a good thing in that it allows more room for diplomatic solutions of crises. If you know that your country will not be wiped out in a first strike, there is a lesser temptation to preempt your enemy.Originally posted by wuming78:i think the saf's doctrines are based on the limitations we face as a nation - space, resources.
hence it is due to our limitations that i suspect we haf a short war doctrine. and to be able to gain control of situation in a short span of time, an all-out pre-emptive move cannot be ruled out. -
Another point to add: preemption cuts both ways. The 1973 Yom Kippur War is an excellent example. Even the mighty Israel was surprised by the sudden strikes of the Arab armies and at one point, the leadership even had to put their nuclear forces on standby. I guess the reason is because the IDF is based largely on reserves and the Arab armies on active units. Hence, ironically, the Arab countries can pre-empt Israel better since they can mobilize their forces with speed and stealth whereas Israel cannot. So, the 1973 war demonstrated that a surprise attack on a country with little strategic depth may very well succeed.
-
If i remember my readings correctly, the Israelis had grown complacent over the fact that the Arab countries had mobilised more than few times before the actual start of the war and when it mobilised for the last time, they attacked and the IDF was caught totally off-guard even with advanced warning from intelligence services which were ignored. I may be wrong.
Mobilisation of your own forces in response to another's mobilisation is an expensive proposition in terms of economy, logistics, etc.Originally posted by Langley:Another point to add: preemption cuts both ways. The 1973 Yom Kippur War is an excellent example. Even the mighty Israel was surprised by the sudden strikes of the Arab armies and at one point, the leadership even had to put their nuclear forces on standby. I guess the reason is because the IDF is based largely on reserves and the Arab armies on active units. Hence, ironically, the Arab countries can pre-empt Israel better since they can mobilize their forces with speed and stealth whereas Israel cannot. So, the 1973 war demonstrated that a surprise attack on a country with little strategic depth may very well succeed. -
Is there any book where i can learn about the 1973 Arab-Israeli war?
-
Thanks for the clarification ferret69Originally posted by ferret69:If i remember my readings correctly, the Israelis had grown complacent over the fact that the Arab countries had mobilised more than few times before the actual start of the war and when it mobilised for the last time, they attacked and the IDF was caught totally off-guard even with advanced warning from intelligence services which were ignored. I may be wrong.
Mobilisation of your own forces in response to another's mobilisation is an expensive proposition in terms of economy, logistics, etc.
Can tell us the title of your readings? Would like to read up, thanks.. They from an NUS history course? -
War of Atonement by Chaim Herzog.Originally posted by Jazzswing:Is there any book where i can learn about the 1973 Arab-Israeli war? -
hm.. it depends on what this first strike is composed isnt it? o cos singapore's general policy of diplomacy and deterrence still holds, and we will always try to talk before we fight. but if we come to a stage where there is no more room to talk, i think striking pre-emptively is certainly one of the options that is on the table, o cos provided there is casus belli.Originally posted by Langley:Huxley pointed out that the strength of our civil defence force, provision of air raid shelters, hardening of key assets like ammo depots and aircraft shelters and now, Newater, allows Singapore to absorb a first strike before retailating. This is also a good thing in that it allows more room for diplomatic solutions of crises. If you know that your country will not be wiped out in a first strike, there is a lesser temptation to preempt your enemy. -
Conventional first strike. I think Huxley mentioned that striking preemptively may be militarily sound. But it'll definitely establish Singapore's reputation as the Israel of SEA. So provided we can still retailate effectively after absorbing a first strike, a second strike'll give us more international sympathy and support.Originally posted by wuming78:hm.. it depends on what this first strike is composed isnt it? o cos singapore's general policy of diplomacy and deterrence still holds, and we will always try to talk before we fight. but if we come to a stage where there is no more room to talk, i think striking pre-emptively is certainly one of the options that is on the table, o cos provided there is casus belli. -
perhaps in general tt may be the case, but i would say tt does not mean we will go for second strike regardless of the actual situation and context. it might not be very wise to do that. o cos i take it tt u mean in general terms too, whereas exceptional cases may call for exceptional moves.Originally posted by Langley:Conventional first strike. I think Huxley mentioned that striking preemptively may be militarily sound. But it'll definitely establish Singapore's reputation as the Israel of SEA. So provided we can still retailate effectively after absorbing a first strike, a second strike'll give us more international sympathy and support. -
Yeap, I also agree that first strikes are much much better. However, they also seal the fate of diplomatic solutions. Imagine if Kennedy had authorized air strikes on the Cuban missiles in 1962 (as many people advocate since the missiles were about to become operational), the world might have descended into nuclear war. Guess whether to undertake a first strike depends on assessing your opponent's intentions. Before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, there were also talks between the two countries to resolve their problems but Saddam was massing his troops along the border already.Originally posted by wuming78:perhaps in general tt may be the case, but i would say tt does not mean we will go for second strike regardless of the actual situation and context. it might not be very wise to do that. o cos i take it tt u mean in general terms too, whereas exceptional cases may call for exceptional moves. -
Jazzswing,
Try this site for a little general information of the Yom Kippur War. There is just too many books out there that talk about the six-day-war and Yom Kippur War, don't know which one to recommend you. I read most of them from different air tactics and tanks tactics books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War -
let's do a six day war.
just don't let it fall on my long weekend
while they're having roti prata and kopi/teh in the morning, we're makin holes in their land -
Since the bulk of our orbat are NSmen, a protracted conflict would be a disaster for the economy.
The SAF will definitely want any potential conflict to be a short one. -
Thanks storywolf.
-
Jazzswing,
Air Combat (New Face of War Series)
The Armored Fist (New Faces of War Series)
Think they are already out of print, but both of them combined to give a very good account of what happen in the air and ground in the Yum Kippur war. There may be other better ones, but found these 2 more easier to interesting to read, with lots of personal interviews from all sides of the war. -
its not really the manpower issue. rather its a resource issue. we cannot survive a protracted conflict.Originally posted by spencer99:Since the bulk of our orbat are NSmen, a protracted conflict would be a disaster for the economy.
The SAF will definitely want any potential conflict to be a short one. -
Originally posted by wuming78:its not really the manpower issue. rather its a resource issue. we cannot survive a protracted conflict.
new here for 2 days and oni saw this now.
Kay b4 any big scale war take place, there is this thing call "tension" it will "build" up and all that are sober will know. Both side will monitor closely the "number" that is building up like manpower, equipment etc etc...
Singapore will not let the 1st strike take place within our land. No we will not. The moment the number hit our "mark" Sorry "Ah Bang" you are going to get it.
Singapore will fight from outside of her home and will hold on as long till help come.(This was back in late 80s and 90s) Today from what I look at it, we will stay there for good.
Manpower will never be an issue. Why? one simple example:- your next door, you neighbour bring a knife knocking on your door looking for a fight what will you do? go to the kitchen and jump out of the window? no right?
Resource will not be an issue either? Why? within is enough for all for some "time" and the "man" are outside where the resources are. isn't it?
Whoever is coming has to do the math 1st. How much is he willing to let go? And for us "Singapore" we will make sure he will lost so much so that for the next 20 to 30 years he can do nothing.
Hah for those Singaporean who think they can fly to somewhere!!! Think again, airspace and searoute will be close for all how to fly and sail? Enemy at the gates, fight him even you are small in size. -
What happens some years from now, where things are not so clear (a Singapore with many foreign 'stakeholders') and there become some influential 'divergent' viewpoints.......because you have ppl from different backgrounds........
Then the threat is within not outside though ppl may take advantage of it and in this case they may not need such a large force if the target is not coherent.
Maybe even just drive right thru.
This lack of oneness MAY weaken our response military or otherwise. -
YES. It up to ppl like you and me (i mean all singaporean) (if you are not forget it.) to do the thinking, not everything depend on garment and by the way i dun think any of the "(NS)BG" will be around by than. they can follow the FT they bring in go into hiding as if i care once all over they will still be better in hiding for i will get them 1 by 1.Originally posted by Fairyland:What happens some years from now, where things are not so clear (a Singapore with many foreign 'stakeholders') and there become some influential 'divergent' viewpoints.......because you have ppl from different backgrounds........
Then the threat is within not outside though ppl may take advantage of it and in this case they may not need such a large force if the target is not coherent.
Maybe even just drive right thru.
This lack of oneness MAY weaken our response military or otherwise.
out of point a bit, For those who "left" (i am not saying all will) i think they will want to be back here to fight side by side with us. it not who had left but who will be around when things turn bad.