Talk:Singapore Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Singapore (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Howitzer link incorrect[edit]

Theres something wrong with the link for the M71 howitzer. It redirects to the M71 star cluster instead. Howitzers M71 155 mm Towed Howitzer Venny85 (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a little more work[edit]

I've copyedited the opening part of this article, but it needs a lot more from someone who understands the subject. sjorford →•← 09:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AMX-10RC and Tempest[edit]

I removed the AMX-10RC from the table since there are no sources about Singapore operating this variant. Also placed "Tempest (modernized Centurion MBT)" in the line about the Cents. Edward Sandstig 11:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging IFV and MICV[edit]

Merged the MICV and IFV section since they're the same thing. (MICV being the British term an IFV being the term used by most other countries) --Edward Sandstig 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M-16S1 - Similar to the A1 or A2?[edit]

I've reverted the text to A1 - the M-16S1 does not have among other things, easily adjustable windage and elevation knobs, three-round burst, upper/lower handguards which the M-16A2 has. --Rifleman 82 01:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)][reply]

The M-16S1 is similar to the M-16A1 model because it was license produced even before the M-16A2 came out Assassin3577 (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Largest in quantity[edit]

Regarding the sentence:

"... military force, the largest in quantity ... South-East Asia region."

In terms of active troops, Singapore actually has the smallest military among its immediate neighbours. If we include the reserve, things get abit fuzzy, like: are there 3 divs, or 6 divs etc (note that some units are never mobilised and exist on paper only), should we include paramilitary of Malaysia and Indonesian etc. It is not entirely clear.--Vsion 17:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Is there a reference for the information of "Tempest (modernized Centurion MBTs)" found in the table, both for the quantity as well as the name of "Tempest". Thanks. --Vsion 00:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only references I've seen have been messageboard posting and a few personal websites. The official Singapore Army website makes no mention of it, but some people have claimed this has to do with OPSEC. I'm of the impression that either the claim of OPSEC is true, or the Singaporean Ministry of Defence has already withdrawn their Centurions from service. If someone could post a reliable source on this that'd be great, but if the existence of those Centurions is supposed to be classified, then let's just remove the line about the "Tempest" from the article. --Edward Sandstig 09:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can remember, SAF never had any MBTs commissioned or operational. --Vsion 13:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


(1) The number of Centurions should be 60, as this is often cited. Although this is fuzzy territory, as the figure varies, with some sources citing the higher figure of 80-100. However, the dominant one is 60 centurions.
(2) The number of 105mm arty guns (60) is exaggerated. More commonly seen figure for LG1 is 40+. I know there is no official figures for all these, but then we should stick to what is commonly cited by foreign publications.
(3) The figures for Primus as well as Pegasus (cited as 54) is the target figure, not present operational strength. Since they are both new, there should be one battalion each, yielding a figure of 18 for each weapon.
(4) The figure for Bionix total (excluding Bionix II) should be 500 instead of 600. And the claim of 100 Bionix II is unlikely to be true, as this is new equipment. Most probably one battalion active. And not all will be 30 mm cannon-armed, as the structure is one 40/50 Bx for every Cannon-armed Bx.
(5) Having said all these, it must be pointed out that it is highly probable that Singapore has more weapons of certain types than is reported by sources like Janes'. Daniel Ehud 15:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic of the Army Structure[edit]

I'm currently working on a project to create graphics of the structure of the most important Armies. i.e. France. I want to make also a graphic of the structure of the Singapore Army, but the information at this point is not sufficient, as there is no information what units compose the single divisions, brigades and Regiments. Does anyone have this information- down to the Battalion and Company levels? Thanks noclador

6th and 9th Division have the most number of NS battalions so you can't name them.Phd8511 (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M551 Sheridan (In Storage)[edit]

Since when did the Singapore Army have such a tank? The Tempests do exist, but I don't think they have this old US made tank. Which source is this from?Cibwins 03:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I too, don't think so that Singapore Army operates the M551 Sheridan but I have seen with my own eyes one M551 Sheridan and one SK-105 Kürassier parked in the garage of ST kinetics at Portsdown road (I have the photo too but I can't show it here due to obvious reasons), probably for research purposes. ...Dave1185 (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SIMON says[edit]

According to an un-named source of mine, SAF has acquired a small quantity of SIMON breach grenade, a new kind of Door breaching rifle grenade (RELM/GREM) that is currently in use by the US Army and Israeli Defense Force, for test and evaluation purposes. Please provide me with any additional data so I can add this into the main page. Thank you. -- Dave1185 (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:BX mk2.jpg[edit]

The image Image:BX mk2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should start a section on its history[edit]

As in history of the Singapore army. Use the ST archives-- as a startOther dictionaries are better (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page temporarily protected from editing[edit]

I have temporarily protected this page from editing to force discussion on the talk page and stop the current edit war. Please discuss the disputed content here. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


How reliable is intelligenceonline? The merkava purchase seems to be a rumour and there does not seem to be any other source backing this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangewarning (talkcontribs) 10:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search turns up no reliable sources which verify this claim. Intelligenceonline seems to be some kind of subscribers-only newsletter, and its reliability is open to question. I've just re-removed this claim pending verification from a clearly reliable source. While Singapore's defence procurements aren't always publicly announced (eg, the recent purchase of additional F-15s), publications like Jane's try their best to track them, and it's unlikely that a purchase of 50 unusual tanks would go un-noticed. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

State of the article[edit]

This article (like many Singapore military-related articles) is a mess. It's less of a mess now, after I edited for style, flow and clarity, excised clumsy expressions and weird syntax, trimmed sentences for economy, and terminated clauses that read as though someone wrote them in Singlish before translating them to English. It was horrible to read, offensive to anyone who doesn't have a tin ear for English.

So please, do not revert. Do not insert unnecessary localisms and superfluous words that interrupt the flow of the article. Less is more.

Years ago Singapore-related Wikipedia articles used to be good. Most of them are shit now, near-incoherent because of piecemeal edits (often made using unidiomatic English) that ruin, just ruin, the explanatory flow of an article. (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is really small[edit]

needs improvement suggest looking at ST archives

Cantab1985 (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Commanders is a list of former commanders[edit]

This list should be shortened. Just because they were COA doesn't mean they are notable.

Sammartinlai (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boey Tak Hup
Ng Jui Ping
Lim Neo Chian
Han Eng Juan
Lim Chuan Poh Ravinder Singh
Perry Lim
Melvyn Ong
Sammartinlai, I have just redlinked Chief of Army (Singapore); it is a notable post in itself, which if the list was split might avoid some of the problem. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the individuals not the position if you look carefully. The former list said all former COAs were notable which definnitely are not. Sammartinlai (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I think they are notable in that they were COA. Think a separate list is preferable though Lyndaship (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're all notable, as soon as they command formations at the level of brigadier; sail through WP:MILPEOPLE without trouble. The Singapore page will be a helpful step to completion of the listings in Category:Army chiefs of staff. I'm confused, Sammartinlai, why would you believe former Singaporean CGSs (COAs) would not be notable? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a list of formr COAs in the article. Notable, what did these former COAs do for the Army really? Winston Choo--notable, serve in the confrontation, longest serving head of army, the COAs then first CDF. Ravi Singh, first non-Chinese COA. Acceptable. Neo and Chan I accept grudgingly because they are hotly mentioned as civil servant and politicians respectively, although really Singh and Choo are more notable. The rest? Just because they were COAs doesn't mean they were notable. Look as the RSN and RSAF articles. They are a smaller number of notable commanders because those are notable. Bey SK is notable as he went on to be the first Air Force CDF (and only non-army CDF so far). The Ng Brothers are notable, all two (and three if you count the third who was Chief of Navy) who headed the RSAF/reached Major-General rank. RSN, curiously no notable list. I would place James Aeria, one of the first naval commanders who build up the navy. Simply listing all former COAs isn't notable. They didn't all do anything spectacular. Sammartinlai (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On that basis, I'll start a deletion discussion for Prince George, Duke of Cambridge, plus a few other of the useless Commanders-in-Chief from the preceding couple of centuries. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]