Inflexibilities
-
just from observation...and wat i think
the infantry is very inflexible....
the management isnt open for ideas
the number of soldiers in a section is inadequate...kill a soldier and the whole section would be out of action
wat do u guys think? -
all SAF camps are inflexible.
-
i kinda find management by Commandos damn flexible leh.....Originally posted by freedom4ever:all SAF camps are inflexible. -
hm.. i take it that you have questions on the doctrine - which is that ours is a 7-man section?Originally posted by Rockhound:just from observation...and wat i think
the infantry is very inflexible....
the management isnt open for ideas
the number of soldiers in a section is inadequate...kill a soldier and the whole section would be out of action
wat do u guys think?
if im not mistaken this was revised not that long ago, from 10 to 7. i personally felt that 7 could be quite small too. but well, there are advantages of being small. of course, it also means every individual soldier becomes that much more important.
anyway this decision is not made by your management. it is something that has to be decided by the powers that be at TRADOC - training and doctrine branch. -
the combat load of the soldier is too heavy.
-
i agree and disagree. agree because i was one of the "victims" because of my build. disagree because i think the load is rather standard and not excessive or useless, and compared to what the other countries' armed forces, or even with our own special forces carry, it's quite ok.Originally posted by crazy monkey:the combat load of the soldier is too heavy. -
we r moivng into the IT and minituarization age...where things will get smaller and sharper... so reducing the manpower size is in line with this improvement in technology
-
our forces would be very vulnerable if enemy uses hit and run tactics like the viet cong while they are on the move.Originally posted by wuming78:i agree and disagree. agree because i was one of the "victims" because of my build. disagree because i think the load is rather standard and not excessive or useless, and compared to what the other countries' armed forces, or even with our own special forces carry, it's quite ok.
-
what has this to do with the combat load?Originally posted by crazy monkey:our forces would be very vulnerable if enemy uses hit and run tactics like the viet cong while they are on the move. -
when the things you carry are so heavy you will tired out easily and reaction will be slower also.Originally posted by wuming78:what has this to do with the combat load? -
haha talk about doctrines? those rock solid rules probably won't change for another 100 years
-
of cos...cheong hard..slack hard..Originally posted by Rockhound:i kinda find management by Commandos damn flexible leh..... -
This was another outcome of falling birthrates back in the late 60s to 70s. I was there when the "transformation" happened.
Yes, 7 men section is probably too small. Although we are supposed to have "better" firepower with the SAW and M203 assigned with a section, one man goes down, firepower is drastically cut. One wounded, another tending to him or 2 to medevec.
Think we should go back to 9 men section. Then have 3 3 men teams in stead of the 3 2 men teams + section cmdr.
But then, all these arguments were posed when the 7 men section was intro'd but they still went ahead with it anyway. -
This was another outcome of falling birthrates back in the late 60s to 70s. I was there when the "transformation" happened.
Yes, 7 men section is probably too small. Although we are supposed to have "better" firepower with the SAW and M203 assigned with a section, one man goes down, firepower is drastically cut. One wounded, another tending to him or 2 to medevec.
Think we should go back to 9 men section. Then have 3 3 men teams in stead of the 3 2 men teams + section cmdr.
But then, all these arguments were posed when the 7 men section was intro'd but they still went ahead with it anyway.