Time to arrest fall in quality of training of SAF conscripts
-
That's why with such an attitude in the regular cadre corps, whether junior or senior, generally still just want the big cushy rank or pay, and because of all these, we have never had anyone here with the equivalent of the attitude where even people with rank of colonel or general lead the charge in the battle and show the way for the men at the front, and by that, not just give the order, but to show what he wants the men to do by doing it himselfOriginally posted by LazerLordz:What matters in our armed forces today is not the amount of new-fangled toys we have, but how professional our regulars and NSFs are.Professionalism plays a big role in ensuring that the army remains as an effective institution in times of crisises, able to deal with threats in a capable manner, unlike all our common "army cock-up" experience.In the case of regulars, they should undergo a paradigm shift in their attitudes, instead of thinking that the Army is a rice bowl which will never crack, or should I say , harder to crack than the private sector.Many regulars sign on with the mindset that the risk element is low, and that Singapore might never go to war in their lifetime.When you have such attitudes amongst the professional soldiers, their thinking will infect the entire corps and slowly work its way to every nook and cranny.
In my NSF experience, I have seen us conscripts, be it men, specs or officers, being tasked a great deal more to do in our daily jobs, much more than the seniors.Why might this be so?Some may say IT revolution, the "lau cheks" may be quite unfamiliar with the new toys the Army is implementing, (remember that they are usually O-level holders or below, for the case of the Warrant Officers, which are mainly the leaders on the ground).Perhaps because of this inadequacy. they make use of us to perform their tasks.It's okay, we are under orders.However, what irks me is the main attitude amongst them that they think its their God-given right and an entitlement for them to have helpers like us, working on stuff that they should be working on.What is needed is appreciation and acknowledgment that we did a good job and we provided assistance and support.This is not a crusade against the senior specialists as a whole, but I'm trying to point out that many of us feel used, and that's where the morose and despondancy appears, when we do a great deal and we are not recognised.So much for ISO, MEA and all that bull, because if you were to go down to the ground, you will realise that all these are just paid lip-service and the Army , exemplified by the narcissists that have their insidious grip on the NSFs, demands commercial standards of production but pays and rewards in a 13th century penury system.
The old generation will pass on soon enough.In order for the rot to be stemmed, we should inculcate proper values in our younger regulars and have in place a stringent psychometrical evaluation and tests to analyse a prospective applicant's mind and character.We should not just accept any fit Tom, Dick or Harry.An motivated smaller and educated force is much better than a large but unmotivated and parasitical force.We owe the taxpayers this much.Let it sink in or we might have a crisis of faith in our green hands. -
aiyo, guys......cut out on the "Mexican" instructor crap lah......say isrealite lah, why? our army was trained by the most elite of all army, why are we hidding the fact that it was the isrealites that trained us? and one more thing, my uncle trained under those guys........he gone in a wuss, came out a man....serious, saw his before and after picture....was damn shock man....
-
My contention is that we should aim for an Israeli,Korean or Taiwanese level of conscript training,as our training isn't churning out ppl of the former caliber as before.We should aim to train conscripts that can fight well,fight hard,have the mental and physical resilience and endurance necessary for their vocation and will be motivated when the need arises as well as flexible and adaptable.Thus my call for tougher training to increase the overall quality of the SAF,starting at the level of the soldier.
For god's sake,the Israelis have proven time and again that with the proper training,a conscript army can match and even outmatch at times regular armies,similarly the Koreans and Taiwanese have proven the efficacy of conscript training in their soldiers performance,though the cultures of both countries are very different from ours as they are driven and have a clearly defined threat facing them,whereas we are stuck in a state of peace.
What our culture in Singapore lacks is a military tradition and history,since we are still rather young and have never fought a major war,as well as a motivation lack,as there is no sense of threat and no clearly defined threat to us at this time.
Imo we face a possible threat of attack from unknown threats at anytime and should be as prepared as humanly possible to deal with them.We cannot afford to be neutral like the Swiss and they live in a very peaceable area of Europe.Our situation is rather different.
Just as there are known threats,there are known unknown threats.Similarly there are unknown threats waiting for an opening to strike.To echo that famous speech;there are known knowns,known unknowns and unknown unknowns,all of which we should be prepared for and take contingencies against,just in case they do happen to be threats. -
Why don't you focus your energy on reforming the professionals that serve in the Army instead of constantly hitting on the conscripts?I would not waste so much time and place the public reputation of my army at risk of a witchhunt, with respect to your martial wishes.We do not have a warrior culture, our forefathers are merchants and traders.It is an incentive-driven world we have inherited.No point going back to the "glory days" of old.As long as our regulars know why they signed up for adn what they signed up for, do the damn job well and go home, we should be satisfied.The gist here is , how do we motivate those who signed on, to perform their tasks professionally and without prejudice towards the conscripts.You have not served as an NSF, therefore your viewpoint might differ from those of us who have earned our right to rant..I know many people like you who were extremely enthusiastic but after they serve a mere 6 months, cynicism is their hallmark and apathy adorns their sleeves.Believe me.
-
So do you want SG army to go around conquering their neighbour like the Mongols to build up a battle harden army with martial traditions ? In the 60's and 70's SAF was small and the threat from Vietnam and the communist was real. Every man counts and hence the strigent standards.
Today's SAF has enough men in reserve and advance hardware to win a battle over its potential adversery. Why push men to the limits when the present standards are adequate to defend the country ? You do not know what we have go through in training unless so dun say the standards are low.
And if you do not know, the standard of country X defence force has slaken too, because their sercurity situation has changed.
If you want to criticise the men who had served the country before you, you have to earn this right, go through their suffering and hardship before you start critising them.
This is my last post for the thread.
-
how do you know that their training is tougher than us? have you gone through it as well...For your info, Taiwan's term of conscription is only 1 year 8 months and being cut further. Their training has also been tapered off in terms of siongness..as for fighting a major war, tell me which of the 3 countries listed above have been involved in the past 35 years which is the main bulk of their conscripts now??Originally posted by Sardaukar:My contention is that we should aim for an Israeli,Korean or Taiwanese level of conscript training,as our training isn't churning out ppl of the former caliber as before.We should aim to train conscripts that can fight well,fight hard,have the mental and physical resilience and endurance necessary for their vocation and will be motivated when the need arises as well as flexible and adaptable.Thus my call for tougher training to increase the overall quality of the SAF,starting at the level of the soldier.
For god's sake,the Israelis have proven time and again that with the proper training,a conscript army can match and even outmatch at times regular armies,similarly the Koreans and Taiwanese have proven the efficacy of conscript training in their soldiers performance,though the cultures of both countries are very different from ours as they are driven and have a clearly defined threat facing them,whereas we are stuck in a state of peace.
What our culture in Singapore lacks is a military tradition and history,since we are still rather young and have never fought a major war,as well as a motivation lack,as there is no sense of threat and no clearly defined threat to us at this time.
Imo we face a possible threat of attack from unknown threats at anytime and should be as prepared as humanly possible to deal with them.We cannot afford to be neutral like the Swiss and they live in a very peaceable area of Europe.Our situation is rather different.
Just as there are known threats,there are known unknown threats.Similarly there are unknown threats waiting for an opening to strike.To echo that famous speech;there are known knowns,known unknowns and unknown unknowns,all of which we should be prepared for and take contingencies against,just in case they do happen to be threats. -
I had the chance to see the Taiwanese Artillery "take action" when I was in ROC in the mid-90's; we happened to end up sorta-sharing the same deployment ground.
Verdict: Gasak Buta (partly cuz they were younger conscripts & we were older reservists). -
there are pple who tok abt going for CDO, Guards, OCS blah blah prior to bmt
but then during first book out, u see the difference ! -
starlight south ?Originally posted by Moxie:I had the chance to see the Taiwanese Artillery "take action" when I was in ROC in the mid-90's; we happened to end up sorta-sharing the same deployment ground.
Verdict: Gasak Buta (partly cuz they were younger conscripts & we were older reservists). -
What is the meaning of Gasak Buta? So what happen? Could you please tell me more about it?Originally posted by Moxie:I had the chance to see the Taiwanese Artillery "take action" when I was in ROC in the mid-90's; we happened to end up sorta-sharing the same deployment ground.
Verdict: Gasak Buta (partly cuz they were younger conscripts & we were older reservists). -
May be because Taiwanese are much smarter thats why they only need 1 year 8 months! Singaporean need 3 years!Originally posted by rancour5:how do you know that their training is tougher than us? have you gone through it as well...For your info, Taiwan's term of conscription is only 1 year 8 months and being cut further. Their training has also been tapered off in terms of siongness..as for fighting a major war, tell me which of the 3 countries listed above have been involved in the past 35 years which is the main bulk of their conscripts now?? -
Obviously you know know euff mat rockers in your kampong.Originally posted by want to know:What is the meaning of Gasak Buta? So what happen? Could you please tell me more about it?
Gasak - guess
Buta - blind(ly)
Sadly lots of the under 25's have little contact between the races. I know of indian chaps whose hokkien is more 'kilat' than mine could ever be. -
Sardaukar, in response to your original question, how do u qualify your statement that the training standard has fallen? Anecdotal evidence perhaps? I'm just curious.
and in response to your remarks about the Israelites (Koreans and Taiwanese soldiers...ermm wouldn't agree that they are well trained and well motivated... )and your perceived high regards for them, have you ever questioned their motivation for attaining such a high standard? For Israel, looking back into their country's formation, they have started off with peanuts and yet fought off their neighbours in 4 different instances (War of Independance, War of Attrition, 6-day War and of course the more well known Yom Kippur War). Why? was it because their trainer cadre were superior? Or jewish black magic perhaps? Of course not. it was the will to fight, they were fighting for their country!! As compared to their counterparts who by all counts had superior technology and larger number, were simply fighting cos they were told!
What am i saying? if and when the SAF needs to respond to a larger threat, we WILL rise to the occasion. Don't believe me? Ask the older reservists who were serving their in-camps in 1998, a yr when there was significant tension with our neighbour. How seriously they took their training! Don't assume for one second that all training takes place during your NSF cycle and you become little Rambos when you ORD. Its easy to criticise the current training methods, but if i were to promote you to ACGS (Trng) tmrw, you will understand the how complex/chaotic things can be.
I guess what i'm trying to do here is to tell you that the SAF is not an isolated organisation (not matter what the ppl inside thinks) and only after being in the organisation for a little while will you appreciate/understand why some things are done in this manner. and of course, by the time you ORDed, you would have grow a little wiser (not to say that you're stupid now or anything, don't take it the wrong way) and able to see the broader picture. One reason why your topic is drawing the amount of negative posts is due to the way this question was addressed.
I'm not going to dampen your spirit and your anticipation towards NS, in fact, i think its excellent! =) There are too many f**king cynics out there already, we certainly don't need another one! -
Guess a young guy has got to learn how to phrase his questions in a more cordial manner.Thanx for words man.Originally posted by gonegoose:Sardaukar, in response to your original question, how do u qualify your statement that the training standard has fallen? Anecdotal evidence perhaps? I'm just curious.
and in response to your remarks about the Israelites (Koreans and Taiwanese soldiers...ermm wouldn't agree that they are well trained and well motivated... )and your perceived high regards for them, have you ever questioned their motivation for attaining such a high standard? For Israel, looking back into their country's formation, they have started off with peanuts and yet fought off their neighbours in 4 different instances (War of Independance, War of Attrition, 6-day War and of course the more well known Yom Kippur War). Why? was it because their trainer cadre were superior? Or jewish black magic perhaps? Of course not. it was the will to fight, they were fighting for their country!! As compared to their counterparts who by all counts had superior technology and larger number, were simply fighting cos they were told!
What am i saying? if and when the SAF needs to respond to a larger threat, we WILL rise to the occasion. Don't believe me? Ask the older reservists who were serving their in-camps in 1998, a yr when there was significant tension with our neighbour. How seriously they took their training! Don't assume for one second that all training takes place during your NSF cycle and you become little Rambos when you ORD. Its easy to criticise the current training methods, but if i were to promote you to ACGS (Trng) tmrw, you will understand the how complex/chaotic things can be.
I guess what i'm trying to do here is to tell you that the SAF is not an isolated organisation (not matter what the ppl inside thinks) and only after being in the organisation for a little while will you appreciate/understand why some things are done in this manner. and of course, by the time you ORDed, you would have grow a little wiser (not to say that you're stupid now or anything, don't take it the wrong way) and able to see the broader picture. One reason why your topic is drawing the amount of negative posts is due to the way this question was addressed.
I'm not going to dampen your spirit and your anticipation towards NS, in fact, i think its excellent! =) There are too many f**king cynics out there already, we certainly don't need another one!
I decided long ago that if I was going to serve anyway,might as well approach it as an adventure and a challenge.see how it goes.already went for all the testing as part of pre enlistment and PES A,also opted for Commandos or Guards,as in I approached the officer at the CMPB release counter after all the testing and they will consider my request.
Regarding your question about anecdotal evidence,yes,I qualified my statement based on that.Perhaps they are right and the SAF has had bouts of civilised training along with some unsiong units,but overall I think the standard is more or less the same as 1998-1999. -
You must consider in the event that the local military becomes very expeditionary in nature, you will never know when that will come. This means going beyond the state of general 'peace' within the immediate region and employing the conscript forces in theatres of action that may or may not be of high intensity conflict in nature, but nonetheless trying on the psyche of the individual.Originally posted by gonegoose:Sardaukar, in response to your original question, how do u qualify your statement that the training standard has fallen? Anecdotal evidence perhaps? I'm just curious.
and in response to your remarks about the Israelites (Koreans and Taiwanese soldiers...ermm wouldn't agree that they are well trained and well motivated... )and your perceived high regards for them, have you ever questioned their motivation for attaining such a high standard? For Israel, looking back into their country's formation, they have started off with peanuts and yet fought off their neighbours in 4 different instances (War of Independance, War of Attrition, 6-day War and of course the more well known Yom Kippur War). Why? was it because their trainer cadre were superior? Or jewish black magic perhaps? Of course not. it was the will to fight, they were fighting for their country!! As compared to their counterparts who by all counts had superior technology and larger number, were simply fighting cos they were told!
What am i saying? if and when the SAF needs to respond to a larger threat, we WILL rise to the occasion. Don't believe me? Ask the older reservists who were serving their in-camps in 1998, a yr when there was significant tension with our neighbour. How seriously they took their training! Don't assume for one second that all training takes place during your NSF cycle and you become little Rambos when you ORD. Its easy to criticise the current training methods, but if i were to promote you to ACGS (Trng) tmrw, you will understand the how complex/chaotic things can be.
I guess what i'm trying to do here is to tell you that the SAF is not an isolated organisation (not matter what the ppl inside thinks) and only after being in the organisation for a little while will you appreciate/understand why some things are done in this manner. and of course, by the time you ORDed, you would have grow a little wiser (not to say that you're stupid now or anything, don't take it the wrong way) and able to see the broader picture. One reason why your topic is drawing the amount of negative posts is due to the way this question was addressed.
I'm not going to dampen your spirit and your anticipation towards NS, in fact, i think its excellent! =) There are too many f**king cynics out there already, we certainly don't need another one!
In such situation, the notion that you pose of fighting for one's country doesn't even come close, when in the heat of action, but more of fighting for one's own life. So that's why the comparison with the Israelis or Taiwanese or Koreans should not be shrugged aside just because of the differences in attitude of the individual peculiar to the nationality.
So let's not be so confident that what you are purporting of the willingness and readiness of the local military for you are definitely not able to vouch for every individual able man on this. Such questions require absolute answers and no one is ever perfect to perform the same manner unless all become robotic soldiers. Let pessimism rule the day so that expectations from the outside will not be of overly unattainable limits. Let these forums continue to be the evil advocates to nip, tuck and nudge at the establishment so that it will really change for the desirable element viewed by everyone. -
Re: "Gasak Buta"
Hmm, maybe this is a foreigner board? ~lol~ FYI Here's how good ol' Talkingcock.com defined the slang:
GASAK/GASAK BUTA
Derived from the Malay phrase "gasak buta", it literally means to "fight blind". It has two meanings: one is to do things in a panicky or haphazard manner, while the other is to grab or swipe things in a gluttonous, indiscriminate manner.
1. "This sort of thing must do properly, cannot anyhow gasak buta!"
2. "Wah lau! Everybody go to McDonald's and gasak all the Hello Kitty oreddy!"
Not much of a story behind what I saw, beyond the novelty factor. Our CO, kiasu as usual, had us ceasefiring & lining up in convoy at the edge of the big field ("Rendezvous"), before breaking for lunch. Then, lo & behond, a Taiwanese unit of towed arty moved into deployment. Won't go into technical details which will bore the uninitiated, but suffice to say both the proximity of & the overlapping nature of their guns isn't what our own doctrine preaches. [Even our drivers spotted the difference; it was one of the Malay ones who joked about "Gasak Buta" amid more colorful banter.]
But what's "funnier" was the visual appearance. It's hard not to view them as a bit suah koo, not out of arrogance but from our own diet of Taiwanese film comedies about their military (the social mores are roughly the same, beyond the zany acting) & also their military dress (tucked-in Temasek greens, WWII-style helmet) resembled our SAF in the '70s or - if you weren't born then - the NCC Land of the '80s. Taiwanese conscripts tend to older as well (many of them in the early 20s), & are generally fair-skinned as well.
So the scene in front of us was these slightly-overaged peng in tight/uncamoflagued uniforms running all over the place, while kena tekan for a lot of chickenshit stuff (eg. they must squat in a certain way), even kicking-in-the-backside antics at times. The way they utilized signal flags (!) reminded us of the MPs twirling their rifles during NDP!
I like to think our own troops have moved on to a style that's more functional/efficiency, though I expect them to view our approach as half-lazy, & probably just as comical (borrowed Temasak green, our own helmet/SBO).
I'm sure they're effective in their own way so it's more of a cultural difference than anything, but then you wonder why a country as rich as them doesn't spend more on military infrastructure. If you've been to our ROC bases, you'll notice immediately how the Singapore side tend to appear more "modern", with showers & things, unlike the Taiwanese side who's like stuck in a time warp from the '40s, with their communal baths & stuff. (See the Taiwanese comedies.) -
Add-on to the counterpoints to Sardaukar's contention:
1. As stated earlier, I don't think the passing grades for the various proficiency tests both on the individual (IPPT, SOC, marksmanship, unarmed combat, etc.) & unit (various training programmes, with RECON 1 as ultimate aim) levels have declined all that much through the decades. Neither as we've significantly lowered standards. Thus the "dropoff in caliber" just doesn't hold, certainly not at the rate we like to tout our operational readiness. What has changed between the generational batches is the level of regimentation, but that's more of a reflection of the educational/motivational backgrounds of the enlistees.
2. I think the SAF is at least 15 years younger than any of the military forces you mentioned, so - for a "fairer analysis" - why not compare where we are today with, say, Taiwan's in the late '80s in terms of organizational maturity?
3. Local conscript & reservist training form part of a bigger whole than Taiwan or even South Korea, whose reservists are IMHO more USA-like "weekend warriors". If anything, I think it's those countries that churn out soldiers more partly cause they have the population base. I won't underrate South Korea's patriotism - in fact I think the Northeast Asian peoples are the most fanatically nationalistic in the world - but I liken their military forces to formerly Iraq's: both have a core of superior troops, but the majority citizen armies are question marks. It doesn't help also that, like Taiwan, they conscript later & end up with a comparatively smaller window of peak unit performance than ours. [Believe me, there's a notable quality dropoff once part-time soldiers near age 30.]
4. Taiwan - & to some extent South Korea too - still believes in these epic Napoleonic manuevers & attritional warfare. That's the way their armies have evolved, if you know your 20th C war histories (not just with the KMT, but also the CCP - even in the hard-terrain Korean peninsula). It's also why I stated them as "Garang Buta", cuz they do emphasize form as much as, if not more than, substance. Just check their showy parades & show-of-force displays, like last week's photo of them lining up 20+ cannons in a row & firing in unison. [Never mind a single shell or bomb can annihilate the entire deployment.] Singapore, by contrast, is located in a region whose forces are still trained mainly for counterinsurgencies. We were similarly inclined once - pre-Independence 1SIR & 2SIR - but have moved on to a more conventional outlook since, while maintaining a lot of "tactical" mentality that's associated with the earlier era. Brunei sends its kids to our OCS, rather than Malaysia's or Indonesia's, cuz it shares the same military philosophy & size limitations. Why do so, or recognize we're the best equipped in SE Asia, if we've supposed to slip badly?
5. There's also the topography factor & corresponding deployment suitability. Taiwan's gonna face a defensive war all the way (with or without US planes/ships) if China invades. South Korea's ground-troop roles are secondary in importance with missiles already pointing at their cities. Singapore island is slated to be guarded by 2nd-line PDF soldiers, with our frontline troops expected to be forwardly aggressive. That supposition, along with the purported siege mentality, are the things we "share" with Israeli. But the Israelis, as pointed out, are repeatedly battle-tested, whereas our own present identity is - better or worse - still more at the deterrent stage. -
Hehe I remember the enthusiasm I myself had before enlistment. Remember the disappointment when I didn't make CDO but went to Tekong for BMT instead. The reason I was so garang was that because of the seniors in my uniform group in my sec sch days kind of inspired me. My seniors and instructors all "zhai kar zhai chiu" (not your average sec4 kpkb power-abusing idiot), some were serving in the army as CDO, some even ORD liao. All damn fit fellars. Sometimes when they tulan will tekan us army style, but always they tekan with reason. Quite unlike those young sec3 sec4 gina in other uniform groups that tekan you for stupid reasons, and make you do ridiculous physical punishments that they themselves cannot do. During PT they did exactly the same things as us instead of standing there looking like kings.Originally posted by Sardaukar:I decided long ago that if I was going to serve anyway,might as well approach it as an adventure and a challenge.see how it goes.already went for all the testing as part of pre enlistment and PES A,also opted for Commandos or Guards,as in I approached the officer at the CMPB release counter after all the testing and they will consider my request.
So all the tekan/regimentation wasn't much of a culture shock when I entered the army. But it's different still. The not-booking-out part really kills your spirit. I've seen so many people (somehow most come from NCC land) start out really garang but in the end turn out to complete flops. They could talk the talk, but couldn't walk the walk.
So Sardaukar please reserve statements like the following :
Until after you enlist. No offense but after you enlist, you might be one of the first that's thankful that the govt reduced the serving time to 2 years. And as for me, I'm just glad my 2.5 yrs service is over.Originally posted by Sardaukar:This goes not only for physical training but for vocational training as well.I am of the opinion that a shorter time frame of 2 years is insufficient for training people in such vocations as Guards,Commandos or NDU,which are our elite forces.
We need to arrest this fall now and give more discretion to the PTIs,NCOs and PCs in regards to the training,to train their soldiers as they see fit,within limits that will test,harden and challenge our conscripts troops,before we lose our advantage over other armed forces within the region.
I've never seen the Koreans or the Israelis, but I have fought against the Taiwanese. And frankly if you ask me, any army that charges uphill without stopping against a hilltop position fortified with con-wire with mgs saws all already dug in in broad daylight has a lot to learn. As usual we "lost" because SAF says the attackers always win. In any case, either the taiwanese tactics are all outdated, or we fought against the worst the taiwanese had to offer.Originally posted by Sardaukar:My contention is that we should aim for an Israeli,Korean or Taiwanese level of conscript training,as our training isn't churning out ppl of the former caliber as before.We should aim to train conscripts that can fight well,fight hard,have the mental and physical resilience and endurance necessary for their vocation and will be motivated when the need arises as well as flexible and adaptable.Thus my call for tougher training to increase the overall quality of the SAF,starting at the level of the soldier.
But i have to say the taiwanese are a bunch of funny people. We were trading fire and both sides were damn tired after chasing one another for the entire ridge line. Then suddenly this taiwan fellar whipped out a camera and asked us to take a photo for and later with them
!! Anyway we didn't give a f*** coz our OC/CO were stretched too damn far away to see. Wahahahaa -
i can only say something. warfare is going to revolutionalized using technology, cyber warfare, robots etc. thats the main reason why it takes shorter time lor. soon all soldiers will be managers of the warfield. not chionging.
-
Originally posted by meander:
Does that mean when Singaporean soldier fought against the Taiwanese soldier. Singaporean always lost! Why? Are Singaporean soldier very lousy?
I've never seen the Koreans or the Israelis, but I have fought against the Taiwanese. And frankly if you ask me, any army that charges uphill without stopping against a hilltop position fortified with con-wire with mgs saws all already dug in [b]in broad daylight has a lot to learn. As usual we "lost" because SAF says the attackers always win. In any case, either the taiwanese tactics are all outdated, or we fought against the worst the taiwanese had to offer.
But i have to say the taiwanese are a bunch of funny people. We were trading fire and both sides were damn tired after chasing one another for the entire ridge line. Then suddenly this taiwan fellar whipped out a camera and asked us to take a photo for and later with them !! Anyway we didn't give a f*** coz our OC/CO were stretched too damn far away to see. Wahahahaa[/b]
Why do you said that the Taiwanese tactics are all outdated? Are Taiwanese soldier also very lousy?
I visited the PLA military forum people there have very low opinion of Taiwanese soldier? They like to make fun and also make sarcastic remark of Taiwanese soldier? What will happen when China invade Taiwan? Do you take Taiwan will lose very easily. China will be able to take back Taiwan within days!
Have any of you fought against Mainland Chinese soldier before? If given a chance would you want?
Thank You For Answering My Questions
-
Mainland china soldiers super fit one leh, they go through selection and not conscription, so all super garang, just on morale alone they win already. Main problem would be technology, no idea how advance their tech is or how backwards.
-
The US armed forces is the most powerful in the world. Yet they fled with their tails between their legs in Vietnam & again in Somalia. And they have their hands full in Iraq. Doesn't mean you are powerful & your soldiers very "zai" means you will win. If China does invade Taiwan, there's no guarantee that it'll be a walk over.
Anyway, its getting a bit OT liao from fall in standards of our soldiers to how "good" China soldiers are.
The way I see it, training standards have dropped due to what I feel is the mistaken feeling that today's soldiers are smarter thus they need less time to learn. No matter how smart one is, he still needs time to learn & practice what he has learnt. Training has been shortened 'cos as in MINDEF's words, the 3G soldier of today is smarter & learns faster. But can he execute what he has learnt?
During my BMT, we had 3 field camps. I hear nowadays its just 1. We learnt our IFC in camp & during the 3 field camps we had to execute what we learnt. My cousin who just finished his BMT not long ago, says they now learn their IFC during their field camp. Apparently everything is being shortened & crammed. The danger of doing this is that you end up with soldiers that are not fully prepared nor trained.
My cousin said that during his IFC lessons at field camp, they were simply told to go camo themselves. No one taught them how to do it. So they just smeared camo cream all over their faces & stuff leaves all over. At the end of the lesson, they were f*cked for doing a lousy job & that was it. They were not told how to camo, they were not evaluated after that, neither were they corrected & told how to improve.
BMT is the most basic thing & if our soldiers don't even know how to camo themselves, how do they fight a war?
When I was a Autotech B, we had to go to OETI for 3 months followed by 1 month OJT. After that it was another 2 months at OETI for upgrading course. Now apparently its 5 months straight at OETI with no OJT.
When I went back for my ICT last year, I remember speaking to my former PC who was saying that this new batch who got posted in were hopeless. Supposedly Auto Spec Tech but can't do the simplest of tasks. I think that's a perfect e.g. of a huge flaw in our training.
In all honesty, I feel that biggest mistake was the softening of training during BMT. I emphasise so much on BMT 'cos that's the beginning. If you have a lousy beginning, how do you expect a wonderful ending? Yes, SAF has claimed that BMT has not softened but those of us who went thru BMT in the days of ITD, SBMT or even BTS will know the truth.
I did my BMT at 3 BTS & we got shit! Some ppl might argue that its pointless to tekan soldiers. I beg to differ. By tekaning them (within reason of course), it helps to make them stronger physically & mentally. Why do you think during NDU's hell week, the trainees are broken down physically & mentally? Its to make them stronger.
I look at the standard of today's BMT & I laugh. Don't compared to the days of ITD under Israeli instructors. Just compare to 2, 3 or 7 BTS & you can laugh liao.
The stuff that we went through included log PT (including crunches & jumping jacks with the freaking log), locker PT, change parade, defaulters parade, etc. It was tough physically & mentally!! I still remember on our very first night of enlistement, we were made to run around the parade square. Everytime one whistle was blown, we had to stop & do push ups followed by crunches. Another whistle & we continue to run.
Many of us dropped like flies from exhaustion. One such guy fell in front of me & I helped him up. I was f*cked for my efforts. As I continued running, I saw the instructor squat next to him & f*cked him upside down, including vulgarities thrown at his parents for added measure.
When you slowed down during runs, instructors didn't encourage you. They ran next to you & f*cked you & your parents. That's how it was in those days. Some recruits couldn't take it & broke down in tears while running.
And don't get me started on our PT sessions! Our so called warming up session before each PT session was in fact a tekan session. Before the actual PT had started, we would've done on average 200 push ups, 200 sit ups & jumping jacks 200 counts of 8. And that was BEFORE the actual PT!!
And as if this mental & physical torture was not enough, in those days there was no catered food. It was NSF chefs & the food sucked big time! Sometimes their portioning skils were so poor that some of us had no veg but got meat, or no meat but got veg. Once they even ran out of rice!!
And unlike today, we had metal trays of our own that we had to wash ourselves with sponges that were f*cking filthy & oily. Also, we had fatigue duty such as cleaning the cookhouse. The worst was cleaning the storage room where rubbish carts are kept. There was rubbish, vomit, rats, cockroaches, etc all over & we had to clean the room. Nowadays, all this is done by contractors.
Oh & our beds that had half their springs missing & the mattresses were thin yellow sponges. It was such that when we laid on the bed, the whole damn thing would sag & we would wake up with backaches.
Some might say that society has changed & that's why today's soldiers have a good life. But they fail to understand one point. Our NS is slowly becoming chalet liao.
My BMT was tough. I cursed & swore through it. But on hindsight, I must admit it helped to build my mental toughness. Look at today's recruits. Kena scold "stupid" only & they complain to the OO & the instructor gets it. These ppl are soft mentally.
If I had a choice, I'd bring back the tough BMT of the past. It does help to build mentally strong soldiers. You may not be super fit physically but if you have the mental strength you can still make it. -
i can only reply you this: this is not going to happen anytime soon. sure technology has enabled the automation of quite a fair number of things such that less manpower is required, but firstly, there are very many things you cannot automate fully. control of the battlefield can be had only by physical presence; and have you seen any robot infantrymen before? secondly, robots almost always need human controllers - they can operate almost (even then not fully) autonomously in, say, factory applications but battlefield robots need a very different subset of skills, the software for which is still a long way off in coming.Originally posted by dumbdumb!:i can only say something. warfare is going to revolutionalized using technology, cyber warfare, robots etc. thats the main reason why it takes shorter time lor. soon all soldiers will be managers of the warfield. not chionging.
to back that second point up perhaps some of you have heard about a competition funded by some us defence agency, in which teams had to build a vehicle able to traverse an obstacle course without any human input. results? dismal failure - not a single team managed to complete the course. this was held just a couple of months ago, iirc. -
First of all, want to know, are you from Singapore ? Have you served in a singaporean combat unit before ?
Originally posted by want to know:
Does that mean when Singaporean soldier fought against the Taiwanese soldier. Singaporean always lost! Why? Are Singaporean soldier very lousy?
Why do you said that the Taiwanese tactics are all outdated? Are Taiwanese soldier also very lousy?
I visited the PLA military forum people there have very low opinion of Taiwanese soldier? They like to make fun and also make sarcastic remark of Taiwanese soldier? What will happen when China invade Taiwan? Do you take Taiwan will lose very easily. China will be able to take back Taiwan within days!
Have any of you fought against Mainland Chinese soldier before? If given a chance would you want?
Thank You For Answering My Questions
Because it's common knowledge that in most SAF exercises, the "aggressor" or the "enemy" ALWAYS loses. No matter how well the aggressor fights.
In that particular exercise in Taiwan, we were a battalion sized aggressor/enemy force fighting against a joint Taiwanese/Singaporean brigade sized force. My company's objective just happened to be attacked by the taiwanese.
Now let's describe my coy objective. My platoon's position was in depth behind the rest of the coy right on top the hill. Directly below in front of us was some damn steep ground with ZERO cover. Further out in front was some slightly flatter ground where the rest of the platoons in the coy were deployed. Beyond them, was more steep ground. Behind my platoon, and the entire company was vegetation. All around the objective was some 50-60 coils of con-wire. 50+ coils might not seem like a lot to some, but we had to carry all of them uphill as the tonner could not ascend the steep hill. And further more, we aint engineers that specialise in obstacle construction.
How did the taiwanese attack our objective ? Right from the front in broad DAYLIGHT. We could see them coming with our binos, and simply re-deployed all our weapons to face the slope. Then they came running up our slope while our GPMG/SAWs/GLs were firing in their faces. By the time they reached us, the reserve platoon, their numbers would have been seriously attritted or more likely totally wiped out by my fellow platoons below.
The irony was that we were defending on THEIR LAND which they should know better. They should have seen that the "correct", but a hell lot more siong way would be to flank and take the top of the hill from behind through all the vegetation FIRST. Then attack downslope. We would have known they were coming, but with their larger numbers, and the vegetation as cover, there would nothing much we could do to stop them.
That's why i made the remark that we "lost" and that the taiwanese used outdated tactics as they tried to win coming straight from the front with a larger force. Even if they did take our objective, it would be after some really serious casualties suffered by them.
Having said all that, I found that the average taiwanese soldier were rather well motivated and were in general, rather fit. They could actually run up our objective !! IMO half my platoon would peng midway as the weather was damn hot. And furthermore they were smiling and joking after the attack. So if anything was wrong with them, it was the tactics they used. So, it might been some ploy by the taiwanese to deceive us into thinking they have a crap army ...
As for mainland China soldiers, I have no comment as I have never seen them in action, nor have i fought with/against them. -
meander,
There, you've just detailed described what I called the Napoleanic sweeps that seems to the Taiwanese style. Again, I don't think they're necessarily radical - who knows, maybe an SAF unit must similarly charge up Mount Faber someday ;-) - but their doctrine is certainly quite different from our own's.
Never had the chanced to watch the Taiwanese "lu-jun" in action. My Arty unit did a "Movement South" at the tailend of my 2nd ROC trip to support a combined-infantry exercise, but the typhoon alert came on when we reached Keelung. We ended up taking shelter in the SAF base nearby, then returned northwards the next day after a change of orders. Complete waste of 2 days, though the sight-seeing from the back of the convoy 7-tonner was nice (if arse-numbing).
--------------------------------------
esesce,
Nothing against your chest-thumping, but BMT's only one facet of military training &, as long as the recruits pass their IPPT/SOC, I don't hold it against today's lot for not being tekan-ed as much.
If it's any comfort, every old-bird bunch will always have bragging rights over how comparatively more siong their stint was.
Ultimately though, you must factor combat effectiveness during the NSF-operational & reservist periods as well. & I would say that the '80s & '90s units more motivated than the '70's batches, which were suggested as inferior by researchers like Huxley. It's a diffferent time: drugs & youth ambivalence were social problems; the SAF favored punishment & regimentation over positive reinforcement; even things like the proficiency tests weren't standardized then etc.