With the recent purchase of six Hercules we now have thirteen, Thirteen tank rfecovery vehicles seems out of whack with only 59 tanks. Is it a signal we are to get more tanks,, or will Hercules also be used for the fighting vehicles we are getting. If so, they are a bit premature are'nt they?
From what Raven is saying there will be 20 more tanks to equip out the additional squadron.
As you suggest the additional Hercules buy suggests that there weren't enough recovery vehicles for the existing fleet....
The extra recovery vehicles was due to Plan Beersheeba, and splitting the tank regiment across the three brigades. Prior to this, the tanks were only in two locations (Darwin and Pucka) which meant that, considering you need one M88 per tank squadron and then one more in support squadron, only having seven was enough. Splitting the tanks across (eventually) four locations means you need at least two at each, plus extra for technical training, attrition/repair etc.
Just a quick one for those interested, below link to youtube channel has 4 short videos on the Boxer and AMV running around Pucka
Cheers
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY5kiJq0Goz1iM1EScMNiSQ/videos
Cheers
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY5kiJq0Goz1iM1EScMNiSQ/videos
Thanks for the Pics
Regards S
Corrections and info
PS: the Bismark was in fact the Rooikat AFV, about 200 + were made, it entered the war too late and therefore did not feature much. New variants were made, ATGM with Ingwe missile and SPAAG version. Many technologies came to fruition towards the end of the war, its a good thing that it stopped when it did. Denel can still produce the Rooikat if only people could pull their heads out of the sand you would have a tank killer of note. Autoloader and multiple target capability, day or night OH! and speed and range.About 6 of these critters some Badgers , some G6's and UAV's would clear Eastern Ukraine in a day.
Another PS: India dealings, note close cooperation with Russia and Pakistan -Russia and India. Then India developed a new sniper rifle after negotiations broke down because of "corruption" with South Africa next thing they start producing their own -Go figure. Give me a Truvelo or NTW over a widvansk -whatever any day.
Hi the new G6- 52 with the v- lap round goes out to 76km. On the above it appears that the US is considering the Patria or "Badger" as opposed to the Stryker for the Denel 105mm LEO range out to 36km.
PS: the Bismark was in fact the Rooikat AFV, about 200 + were made, it entered the war too late and therefore did not feature much. New variants were made, ATGM with Ingwe missile and SPAAG version. Many technologies came to fruition towards the end of the war, its a good thing that it stopped when it did. Denel can still produce the Rooikat if only people could pull their heads out of the sand you would have a tank killer of note. Autoloader and multiple target capability, day or night OH! and speed and range.About 6 of these critters some Badgers , some G6's and UAV's would clear Eastern Ukraine in a day.
Another PS: India dealings, note close cooperation with Russia and Pakistan -Russia and India. Then India developed a new sniper rifle after negotiations broke down because of "corruption" with South Africa next thing they start producing their own -Go figure. Give me a Truvelo or NTW over a widvansk -whatever any day.
Last edited:
Biggest question is whether that this would be the first priority?
Not sure it would get to get onto what I would see as initial expansion path for the army.
I would think it would more be:
+ 4th Beersheba brigade (absorbing 2 RAR)
+ Massed fires regiment (HIMARS)
+ GBAD regiment (who knows)
If adding to the Beersheba regiments I would have thought an additional Cav squadron would be preferable to an additional tank squadron (not that I am anti additional tanks).
With a 4th Beersheba brigade you could surge an armoured battlegroup from the Deploy & Ready brigades (assuming a refit, train, ready, deploy cycle) say:
1 cav squadron
2 tank squadrons
2 mech inf squadrons
Understand you don't get your armoured brigade but suspect that that is an unlikely given size of the army.
Regards,
Massive
Talking Seriously- Tanks are dead
G&/T7 LEO tested for the Lav and Stryker was more accurate, had a higher kill rate and greater distance- Go Figure
Sure you are not going to have the protection of the Abrams, but you have incoming missile detectors, smoke, speed and counter source to overcome this.
If you still want tanks -" tanks are OK-maybe not dead" a Patria or Badger has greater range /quicker. You have some of these with squads with Truvelo's or NTW (sniper weapons - out to 2.5km) some Milkor grenade launchers and you practically dont need a Bateleur 127mm MRLS or a G6 with MRSI. Maybe some Abrams /Armata tank killers like the Rooikat 105.
Lastly price -Get more bang for your buck....
That with Tigers- prefer Rooivalk(obvious South African bias) and F-35's overhead the Australian Army soldier would be a one man army.
Well Abrams or Armata tanks are dead mate. You can get a Patria/ Badger with a 105 (direct and indirect fire) that will outgun them, be faster more nimble and have a platoon in the back. A Patria ATGM version with Ingwe or GB Mokopa ATGM will take out Abrams, as well. Keeping up with the infantry should be what it is about!
G&/T7 LEO tested for the Lav and Stryker was more accurate, had a higher kill rate and greater distance- Go Figure
Sure you are not going to have the protection of the Abrams, but you have incoming missile detectors, smoke, speed and counter source to overcome this.
If you still want tanks -" tanks are OK-maybe not dead" a Patria or Badger has greater range /quicker. You have some of these with squads with Truvelo's or NTW (sniper weapons - out to 2.5km) some Milkor grenade launchers and you practically dont need a Bateleur 127mm MRLS or a G6 with MRSI. Maybe some Abrams /Armata tank killers like the Rooikat 105.
Lastly price -Get more bang for your buck....
That with Tigers- prefer Rooivalk(obvious South African bias) and F-35's overhead the Australian Army soldier would be a one man army.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Tanks being declared dead has happened before, and for similar reasons as those quoted above. However, that has not proven the case based off US experiences in places like Iraq.
Well Abrams or Armata tanks are dead mate. You can get a Patria/ Badger with a 105 (direct and indirect fire) that will outgun them, be faster more nimble and have a platoon in the back. A Patria ATGM version with Ingwe or GB Mokopa ATGM will take out Abrams, as well. Keeping up with the infantry should be what it is about!
G&/T7 LEO tested for the Lav and Stryker was more accurate, had a higher kill rate and greater distance- Go Figure
Sure you are not going to have the protection of the Abrams, but you have incoming missile detectors, smoke, speed and counter source to overcome this.
If you still want tanks -" tanks are OK-maybe not dead" a Patria or Badger has greater range /quicker. You have some of these with squads with Truvelo's or NTW (sniper weapons - out to 2.5km) some Milkor grenade launchers and you practically dont need a Bateleur 127mm MRLS or a G6 with MRSI. Maybe some Abrams /Armata tank killers like the Rooikat 105.
Lastly price -Get more bang for your buck....
That with Tigers- prefer Rooivalk(obvious South African bias) and F-35's overhead the Australian Army soldier would be a one man army.
The extra mobility of lighter wheeled IFV's does not provide the claimed benefit of requiring less armoured protection in a number of circumstances. Areas of broken terrain come to mind, where tracked vehicles can be more mobile. Or urban warfare, where not only can mobility be constrained by buildings and vehicles, there can be very limited lines of sight and ranges due again to buildings. Under US SecDef Rumsfeld, Striker battalions were to be used negating the need for heavy armour due to their increased mobility providing greater protection. After gaining more operational experience with them, the reality proved to be somewhat different than the expectation had been.
IFV/ ICV Then and now
The Patria/ Badger 105 will have greater firepower than any new Abrams/ Armata tank. It is also up armoured from the vehicles mentioned before (R & R - not rum and raspberry). Open terrain i don't know, but a Rooikat AFV would be match but with twice the range/ fuel. Shooting on the move with automatic target acquisition. With ATGM nowadays however a simple ground soldier can destroy a tank up to 10km(if visible or highlighted), they can avoid counter measures, like TOW is so last century. Just thinking with a volley of G6 MRSi rounds or MRLS there may not be that many tanks left, so air superiority would be key.
House clearing like opening scenes of American Sniper or Black Hawk Down, closest to combat I've seen. The Abrams is certainly a beast big and powerful- fear factor or effectiveness factor. What is required in those situations is height and thermal sights maybe a AHeli . So good protection with a 10 man team (none of the Humvee stuff with top gunner with a.50 cal) - a Patria with a 30mm gun , anti material / sniper rifles and clearing with a Milkor grenade launcher will do. For scene like on top of the roof , when they were surrounded or the Benghazi movie , surrounded in compound. One Milkor grenade launcher would have sufficed. Cleared an area out to 2 km.
The LAV and later on Stryker are not very good IFV / ICV's, things have changed. They were proved to be insufficient. The Ratel or Rooikat developed in the late 70's are better protected and have more variants, better fire power greater range- here were talking late 70's.
Tanks being declared dead has happened before, and for similar reasons as those quoted above. However, that has not proven the case based off US experiences in places like Iraq.
The extra mobility of lighter wheeled IFV's does not provide the claimed benefit of requiring less armoured protection in a number of circumstances. Areas of broken terrain come to mind, where tracked vehicles can be more mobile. Or urban warfare, where not only can mobility be constrained by buildings and vehicles, there can be very limited lines of sight and ranges due again to buildings. Under US SecDef Rumsfeld, Striker battalions were to be used negating the need for heavy armour due to their increased mobility providing greater protection. After gaining more operational experience with them, the reality proved to be somewhat different than the expectation had been.
The Patria/ Badger 105 will have greater firepower than any new Abrams/ Armata tank. It is also up armoured from the vehicles mentioned before (R & R - not rum and raspberry). Open terrain i don't know, but a Rooikat AFV would be match but with twice the range/ fuel. Shooting on the move with automatic target acquisition. With ATGM nowadays however a simple ground soldier can destroy a tank up to 10km(if visible or highlighted), they can avoid counter measures, like TOW is so last century. Just thinking with a volley of G6 MRSi rounds or MRLS there may not be that many tanks left, so air superiority would be key.
House clearing like opening scenes of American Sniper or Black Hawk Down, closest to combat I've seen. The Abrams is certainly a beast big and powerful- fear factor or effectiveness factor. What is required in those situations is height and thermal sights maybe a AHeli . So good protection with a 10 man team (none of the Humvee stuff with top gunner with a.50 cal) - a Patria with a 30mm gun , anti material / sniper rifles and clearing with a Milkor grenade launcher will do. For scene like on top of the roof , when they were surrounded or the Benghazi movie , surrounded in compound. One Milkor grenade launcher would have sufficed. Cleared an area out to 2 km.
There is no way a fourth Beersheeba brigade will eventuate. Even if by some miracle the extra soldiers were available, they would be used to fill out the current brigades into full strength three-BG brigades. Adding a fourth brigade would also add to the stress on the enabling brigades, which aren't big enough to properly support the current three combat brigades as it is.
Both HIMARS and proper GBAD are in the white paper and will come online early next decade. Whether they will be stand alone regiments or part of 16 ALR or 20 STA is yet to be determined.
As it is, each ACR will gain a second cav squadron, by the simple method of cutting the current squadron in half (3 x 4 vehicle troops, instead of 4 x 6 vehicle troops). Since this will also generate a second Sqn HQ and A1 ech, it will enable independent recce on two avenues of approach, thus increasing freedom of action for the brigade.
Er, no. Just no. Without going into a line by line rebuttal, there is a reason literally no-one is replacing tanks with wheeled AFVs.
Well Abrams or Armata tanks are dead mate. You can get a Patria/ Badger with a 105 (direct and indirect fire) that will outgun them, be faster more nimble and have a platoon in the back. A Patria ATGM version with Ingwe or GB Mokopa ATGM will take out Abrams, as well. Keeping up with the infantry should be what it is about!
G&/T7 LEO tested for the Lav and Stryker was more accurate, had a higher kill rate and greater distance- Go Figure
Sure you are not going to have the protection of the Abrams, but you have incoming missile detectors, smoke, speed and counter source to overcome this.
If you still want tanks -" tanks are OK-maybe not dead" a Patria or Badger has greater range /quicker. You have some of these with squads with Truvelo's or NTW (sniper weapons - out to 2.5km) some Milkor grenade launchers and you practically dont need a Bateleur 127mm MRLS or a G6 with MRSI. Maybe some Abrams /Armata tank killers like the Rooikat 105.
Lastly price -Get more bang for your buck....
That with Tigers- prefer Rooivalk(obvious South African bias) and F-35's overhead the Australian Army soldier would be a one man army.
That's a lot of bold assertions being made. Would really, really love to see the sources that give you the confidence to make such claims.The LAV and later on Stryker are not very good IFV / ICV's, things have changed. They were proved to be insufficient. The Ratel or Rooikat developed in the late 70's are better protected and have more variants, better fire power greater range- here were talking late 70's.
The Patria/ Badger 105 will have greater firepower than any new Abrams/ Armata tank. It is also up armoured from the vehicles mentioned before (R & R - not rum and raspberry). Open terrain i don't know, but a Rooikat AFV would be match but with twice the range/ fuel. Shooting on the move with automatic target acquisition. With ATGM nowadays however a simple ground soldier can destroy a tank up to 10km(if visible or highlighted), they can avoid counter measures, like TOW is so last century. Just thinking with a volley of G6 MRSi rounds or MRLS there may not be that many tanks left, so air superiority would be key.
House clearing like opening scenes of American Sniper or Black Hawk Down, closest to combat I've seen. The Abrams is certainly a beast big and powerful- fear factor or effectiveness factor. What is required in those situations is height and thermal sights maybe a AHeli . So good protection with a 10 man team (none of the Humvee stuff with top gunner with a.50 cal) - a Patria with a 30mm gun , anti material / sniper rifles and clearing with a Milkor grenade launcher will do. For scene like on top of the roof , when they were surrounded or the Benghazi movie , surrounded in compound. One Milkor grenade launcher would have sufficed. Cleared an area out to 2 km.
Not everything is to be believed
No major wheeled AFV you need ask the ? Perhaps there's this surplus to supply thing , after the Soviet Union after all the Iraq war's. Corruption, South Africa -Money!
Just thinking after the Iraq/ Afghanistan invasion and troop casualties began mount. They then started relying on South African armour design and vehicles to protect the troops from IED 's etc . They also utilised tactics and lives of personal protection people / mercs. The US now produces the Milkor grenade launcher, South African designed. The Canadian LAV and Stryker tests proved that the 105mm T7 LEO round had greater distance, greater kill rate/accuracy cep easier to use than anything the US (better than most 152mm rounds) had to offer yet they chose not to proceed with it? indication now is that technology is in US hands no as well. Not exported from SA but pillaged again from Africa.
Simple check out Denel's Truvelo or Paramount sites there you will find many answers. i have no affiliations with Denel, etc I am still a South African citizen, becoming an Aussie soon. Feel South Africa always seems to get a rough deal. The country got rid of its atomic weapons had its space program curtailed. Despite the Gerald Bull incidents which have long been surpassed and Israeli shenanigans the country has by a large done it on its own.
Well not everything is to be believed especially on the internet. You must however know this there are better weapons out there that are perhaps better than US weapons or Russian for that matter. Although their defence spending is Astronomical they have perhaps a bloated inefficient system as alluded to by Trump himself.
No major wheeled AFV you need ask the ? Perhaps there's this surplus to supply thing , after the Soviet Union after all the Iraq war's. Corruption, South Africa -Money!
Just thinking after the Iraq/ Afghanistan invasion and troop casualties began mount. They then started relying on South African armour design and vehicles to protect the troops from IED 's etc . They also utilised tactics and lives of personal protection people / mercs. The US now produces the Milkor grenade launcher, South African designed. The Canadian LAV and Stryker tests proved that the 105mm T7 LEO round had greater distance, greater kill rate/accuracy cep easier to use than anything the US (better than most 152mm rounds) had to offer yet they chose not to proceed with it? indication now is that technology is in US hands no as well. Not exported from SA but pillaged again from Africa.
Simple check out Denel's Truvelo or Paramount sites there you will find many answers. i have no affiliations with Denel, etc I am still a South African citizen, becoming an Aussie soon. Feel South Africa always seems to get a rough deal. The country got rid of its atomic weapons had its space program curtailed. Despite the Gerald Bull incidents which have long been surpassed and Israeli shenanigans the country has by a large done it on its own.
Last edited:
Well there's your first problem.
You won't learn much about war in the brochures of someone trying to ell you something.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
You seem to have missed several points. At present, there are some capabilities which tracked, heavy armour has, that wheeled armour does not. This has been proven operationally by the US, among other armoured force operators.Well not everything is to be believed especially on the internet. You must however know this there are better weapons out there that are perhaps better than US weapons or Russian for that matter. Although their defence spending is Astronomical they have perhaps a bloated inefficient system as alluded to by Trump himself.
No major wheeled AFV you need ask the ? Perhaps there's this surplus to supply thing , after the Soviet Union after all the Iraq war's. Corruption, South Africa -Money!
Simple check out Denel's Truvelo or Paramount sites there you will find many answers. i have no affiliations with Denel, etc I am still a South African citizen, becoming an Aussie soon. Feel South Africa always seems to get a rough deal. The country got rid of its atomic weapons had its space program curtailed. Despite the Gerald Bull incidents which have long been surpassed and Israeli shenanigans the country has by a large done it on its own.
Now your continued preference of South African kit has been rather hard to miss. Some of the designs and ideas which have come out of South Africa have been quite innovative. There are also a few realities which you seem to keep overlooking. Namely that the South African kit has largely been designed for domestic needs, which themselves are likely to be narrower than nations which engage in more expeditionary operations, especially in theatres outside of Africa.
As for the capability claims... we tend to take what is publicly available with a grain of salt. A number of members here have direct experience with different weapons systems and quite often the actual, practical performance and stated or claimed performance is different. Sometimes significantly so.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Some here may recall that Canada did plan to phase out their Leo 1s in the late 1990s and go with an all wheel mobile force. Part of the LAV fleet would get 105 mm guns. Then Afghanistan happened. While LAVs performed well, limitations were discovered. The 25mm gun wasn't good enough for penetrating adobe walls. Wheeled vehicles had difficulties in much of the terrain over there. The Canadian army brought their Leo 1 tanks over and solved many problems but a lack of air conditioning led to the acquisition of Leo 2 tanks, one of the positives of our Afghanistan deployment.
The 105mm LAV never happened, probably because we got back in the tank business, fortunately! There may have been engineering issues (and cost) putting the 105mm on the LAV 3.
The 105mm LAV never happened, probably because we got back in the tank business, fortunately! There may have been engineering issues (and cost) putting the 105mm on the LAV 3.
Sure it will ...
No, he cannot. That range is extreme, also tanks have armor, remember? (OK, not turkish tanks but from other countries.) So a direct hit does not mean destruction.
Sure it is, not effective at all :rolling
Maybe the USA, Russia, Israel etc should start licensing these magical IFVs from South Africa, obviously they are amateurs and don't know what they are doing all these years with their Merkavas, Abrams, Leopards, T-90, Armata. Like, so last century.
Apologies - did not realise this would be the case - have been trying to build my knowledge based on public material and have missed this. May well have been covered earlier in the thread as well.
Is the expectation that all 4 would be gun vehicles? That is - cutting the APCs now we are moving to larger CRVs?
Thanks for the new info (for me anyway).
Massive
Is there a case for disbanding 2 RAR to free up manpower - going back to 6 infantry battalions?
Regards,
Massive