Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

The future is not entirely specialised, however some level of specialisation is required to be good at anything. To expect one battalion to be able to train up to be light, mech, airmobile, amphibious etc all at once, and have the kit to be able to do all these things, is very ambitious. You could still happily convert battalions between roles, it would just take time and resources.

With the Reserve battle group, it’s role is essentially rear area security. Things like protecting HQs, the brigade maintenance area, convoy escorts etc. One would argue the Reserve isn’t particularly well set up for this role, and there’s been no intellectual rigour go into how to do rear area security anyway, but at least it is a valuable role that’s is well within the capability of the Reserve to generate within the normal raise train and sustain cycle.

There are lots of desires to turn the reinforcing battlegroup into another manoeuvre battle group, but realistically that isn’t possible outside of general mobilisation. I took a (very) small part in the 2 Div force design review, and the adherents were never really able to convince any one that you could take a reserve unit with a lower level of training and readiness than a regular unit, have them conduct far less training during the readying cycle, yet still reach the same level of training to perform the same roles as a regular unit. Particular when 2 Div still struggles to meet the training requirement of the current rear area security role.

There is a lot of potential in the Reserve, but IMO it’s greatest weakness is everyone above the rank of major who wish for a reserve that is a mirror of the ARA, rather than to provide the complementary capabilities that are actually needed and achievable. The problem is, there aren’t many jobs for colonels when all the Reserve is doing is providing reinforcements for the regular brigades.

Hi Raven

The subject of what to expect form the Reserve / CMF has gone on for decades. Something I do observe is the number of reservist now who have service ribbons compared to the 80's. I Guess in what ever capacity these reservist served (presumably) overseas they helped support, or alternatively freed up regular troops to conduct their assigned roles.
Will this continue to be their role.
I often wonder if a true reserve / Reg battalion was established if it could it work. Maybe 70 / 30 % mix with the Regulars employed in the more skilled positions.
Would three such Battalions be a benefit or a burden of resources as the back up Battalion in the Brigade structure.
It would be culturally different and would take time to develop but I believe it has potential.

Regards S

 

[Waylander]

Would I be right in saying that although all recce vehicles should have the means to defend themselves in the event of coming into contact with equivalent or heavier enemy units; how various armies go about conducting recce and how the arm their vehicles really depends on doctrine? Some armies believe that recce vehicles should only be lightly armed because they should never have to fight for intel; whilst other armies believe that recce units should fight for intel or be in a position where they have to engage in combat in order for them to do their job; thus should be at least armed with an auto cannon or ATGWs.

On the actual platform itself; some will still argue that despite not having the needed protection, mobility and internal volume; a smaller less visible vehicle [Weasel, Scimitar, BRDM, etc] still remains the most ideal option for dedicated scout/recce work compared to a larger vehicle [Boxer, Piranha, etc]. What are your thoughts on this?

That‘s correct. Recce comes in many forms and it depends on the structure and doctrine what an army prefers.

I for one am of the opinion, that one needs all of them. Light and stealthy ones just as heavier and more combat capable ones. We in germany also have small dedicated recce platoons in the armoured/mech.inf. bns which are just equipped with G-Wagons and they fullfill an important role, too.

It‘s also not that a role vanishes just because the dedicated units don‘t exist. For example, when the german army got rid of their heavy recce units (operating Luchs and Leopard II) the need for recce by force and screening didn‘t go away. It‘s just that now the combat units themselves have to use their own assets for these tasks. Diminishing their ability to concentrate forces for decisive actions.

For me asymetric overseas missions like in the middle east, Afghanistan or Africa emphasized the role of vehicles the recce Boxer as such vehicles bring lots of usefull additional capabilities to the table for these kind of missions.

 

[STURM]

How would the G-wagon equipped recce units tie in with units that have recce platforms in the form of Weasel and Fennek? Are both intended to complement each other or are recce platoons in armored/mechanised units equipped with G-Wagons because it's felt that in certain scenarios [based on terrain or the threat level] that a G-Wagon would be more practical than a Weasel and Fennek?

Would I be right in saying that the Bundeswehr's recce doctrine hasn't changed much from WW2; in that there is full realisation that although recce units - ideally - should never have to fight to do their job; that at times there will be no avoiding this and units will have to engage in combat and have the means to get themselves out of trouble.

It would be interesting to have some online or published sources that indicate in detail how various armies go about conducting tactical and operational level recce; unfortunately there's not much out there.

 

[Waylander]

The recce platoons of the line bns are used for close in recce and usually don‘t operate that far away like the larger independent recce units with Fenneks (and Luchs and Leopards in the past).

If recce by force is necessary the brigade puts some heavy line platoons out into the screen.

I don‘t think that many armies don‘t realise that recce by force may be needed at times and that screening one‘s forces from enemy scouts is also important.

It comes down to doctrine (and often enough budget) if lots of dedicated units for the different tasks are available.

 

[hairyman]

Looks like another job for the Hawkii. It is going to end up being quite a versatile and important vehicle.

 

[old faithful]

I'm sorry, but being an inftrantryman, I find an Army of our size, should be about 1/3 the size bigger.
3 motorized Bns,3 mech Bns, a Coy + amphib group, a commando BN , mixed armoured regts towed arty.....it just seems to inflexible for my likeing.
There is room for 3 Light Infantry Bns.
Cav regts should remain Cav, maybe make them the motorized Bns? And free up 3 inf Bns.

 

[Raven22]

Huh?

I'm sorry, but being an inftrantryman, I find an Army of our size, should be about 1/3 the size bigger.
3 motorized Bns,3 mech Bns, a Coy + amphib group, a commando BN , mixed armoured regts towed arty.....it just seems to inflexible for my likeing.
There is room for 3 Light Infantry Bns.
Cav regts should remain Cav, maybe make them the motorized Bns? And free up 3 inf Bns.

Huh? An army of our size should be a 1/3 bigger? Then it wouldn’t be our size.

 

[t68]

Huh?


Huh? An army of our size should be a 1/3 bigger? Then it wouldn’t be our size.

I think he means more of a regional power and the ADF as a whole needs to be 1/3rd bigger, a regular Army of 42000 would mean an additional Brigade, but realistically most likely needs to be around 48000 along with all the support that needs to go along with it.

While the ADF will become more lethal and combat orientated with the AWD NGF LHD and soon new armoured vehicle and protected vehicles Growler F35 C17 etc., the ADF has not grown to a point where it can conduct another INTERFET size operation without drastically overstretching the ADF again without calling up reservist if the have not already done so . All the RAN/RAAF heavy lift would once again stretched to the absolute limit with no additional resources available for other contingencies.

The ADF needs to have the capacity to support a Brigade(min 3x Brigade's needed) long term in the field along with supporting combat/logistics assets from both RAN/RAAF and ADF should also have the ability to intervene at short notice an Op Solace type operation.

Ideally we would need to increase dramatically not only the Army but both RAN/RAAF with both combat and logistic ships and aircraft to achieve this and budget to match of 3% of GDP, I cant see that happening any time soon.

 

[hairyman]

we are struggling to get this government to commit to 2% GDP, I cant imagine 3%. Anyway if we are running the ADF on 1.8%,and want it to grow by a third, 2.4%seems like a more realistic and achievable figure.

 

[Takao]

I'm sorry, but being an inftrantryman, I find an Army of our size, should be about 1/3 the size bigger.
3 motorized Bns,3 mech Bns, a Coy + amphib group, a commando BN , mixed armoured regts towed arty.....it just seems to inflexible for my likeing.
There is room for 3 Light Infantry Bns.
Cav regts should remain Cav, maybe make them the motorized Bns? And free up 3 inf Bns.

I disagree. For three reasons:

1. The last thing the Australian Army needs is more Infantry units - we have more than enough for (a) any likely taskings, and (b) a solid kernel of skill if we need to mobilise. Light infantry is arguably the easiest or second easiest role to rapidly raise, making light Bn even more of a resource sap. Finally, while there is an argument for increasing the Army's size, with the current budget and manpower caps it is better pouring those resources into enablers. Even light infantry doesn't fight alone - but the enablers are too stretched as we speak.

2. Of all the combat roles, light infantry is the easiest. There is a reason they are the base skills for every officer and soldier. Much better to reinforce our high-end warfighting capability; because we can always step down if we need. I can utilise the current FORGEN cycle to rapidly produce a light infantry CT or BG; in no way can I rapidly produce a mech infantry BG. That needs time, training and resources.

3. Possibly a misunderstanding - but making Cav Regt into Bn? In what world does that make sense?

 

[vonnoobie]

Lets make it easy, Just take over the NZDF.

Jokes aside reading here thinking seems to be going along the lines that the percentage we increase the personnel numbers we also need to increase the budget however is that truly the case? We have manning caps in place and I have to ask are those caps forcing us to spend unneeded expenditures for a small force or could the ADF if they had those caps removed be able to increase the force size within the existing budget?

 

[Todjaeger]

Lets make it easy, Just take over the NZDF.

Jokes aside reading here thinking seems to be going along the lines that the percentage we increase the personnel numbers we also need to increase the budget however is that truly the case? We have manning caps in place and I have to ask are those caps forcing us to spend unneeded expenditures for a small force or could the ADF if they had those caps removed be able to increase the force size within the existing budget?

Realistically if the ADF wanted to increase the number of personnel by a significant margin, then either the budget would need to be increased (by an even greater margin I believe) to keep the personnel kitted out to the same standard or the the ADF could end up with more personnel that are less well equipped. If the budget was kept flat while personnel increased significantly, then there could be a fair drop in the quality and quantity of kit issued to or in use by personnel.

If forget the numbers, but one of the largest overall expenses for the ADF is personnel, perhaps a third or more of the ADF budget. Increasing the personnel numbers means also increasing the cost for the number of personnel. This in turn means that either the personnel costs get an even greater percentage or the ADF budget pie, or the pie needs to be larger...

 

[old faithful]

I think that an awful lot of $ in defence budget is either not actually getting to the ADF or is being eaten up in wasteful ways.
Italy for example has a similar sized defence budget as our own.
What I meant by CAV units.....I mean the CAV should have their own dismounts. They have in the past.
Our population has grown significantly over the last 25 years. We have become involved in long drawn out conflicts. I understand that chews money. But for a nation of our size to field 6 undermanned (under personed?) Infantry Bns, 3 hodge podge mixed up armoured regts, and have no light infantry, is mad.
All you experts saying how easy it is to train infantry, its like any job, experience means more than you realise. Any grunt can de bus an APC, what we will have shortly is 6 vehicle maintenance Bns.

 

[oldsig127]

I think that an awful lot of $ in defence budget is either not actually getting to the ADF or is being eaten up in wasteful ways.
Italy for example has a similar sized defence budget as our own.

Italy has an area to defend slightly larger than Victoria, and all their bases within walking distance of the local trattorias. You can hardly equate the cost of defending one nation versus defending another without looking a lot more closely at factors other than the number of dollars/euro expended, like supporting bases and soldiers in seriously remote area and over enormous distances.

My infantrying days passed by 40 years ago, but I can assure you that I wouldn't choose to send a child or grandchild of mine to war as a light infantry soldier in this techological age.

oldsig

 

[Takao]

I think that an awful lot of $ in defence budget is either not actually getting to the ADF or is being eaten up in wasteful ways.
Italy for example has a similar sized defence budget as our own.
What I meant by CAV units.....I mean the CAV should have their own dismounts. They have in the past.
Our population has grown significantly over the last 25 years. We have become involved in long drawn out conflicts. I understand that chews money. But for a nation of our size to field 6 undermanned (under personed?) Infantry Bns, 3 hodge podge mixed up armoured regts, and have no light infantry, is mad.
All you experts saying how easy it is to train infantry, its like any job, experience means more than you realise. Any grunt can de bus an APC, what we will have shortly is 6 vehicle maintenance Bns.

As oldsig says, comparison with Italy is spurious - Australia is the size of Europe, not one little country. We have to have an expeditionary force, simply to move from Adelaide / Darwin / Townsville / Brisbane to Shoalwater Bay / Cultana / Bradshaw. There is waste sure, as is the case with every budget, but even if it was possible to police that perfectly, it is not going to magically get us something groundbreaking.

Ah - not getting involved in cav scouts v infantry - frankly I don't care and the 'appendage' measuring between the two Corps on that topic is getting nauseating....

No - I don't misunderstand experience. I've lived that, even had training programs changed because we threw it away in some areas. But that is not what I said. From Army's point of view, light infantry training is the easiest thing to do - it's partially why we all do it. Other than a regular driver, there isn't anything else easier for Army to ab inito train. If I need to grow a bunch of light infantry PTE and JNCO then I can do that, quickly and easily.

When you talk experience though, I think you undermine your own argument. "Any grunt can de bus an APC" is a line with a significant misunderstanding of the role of RAInf in maintaining a Mech Bn fighting capability. These men and women are going to, frankly, be a cut above any light infantry force we have ever had in their technical skills, their lethality and their ability to win against a peer threat. And it won't be a case of simply debussing - look at previous posts, we could be talking about a single JNCO controlling 4x 30mm cannon and ATGW, unprecedented ISR systems and a communications network that exceeds that of a 1999 CO. What does a light infantry JNCO control? 9 people and maybe a 7.62mm machine gun? A BMS terminal (maybe) and a couple of radios? Maybe?

Let me be controversial - one of the biggest problems facing the Land Force now is the excessive focus on light infantry and the excessive influence said individuals have in the hierarchy. Infantry will always be needed and they will continue to fill key roles throughout the chain of command up to CA. But the light focus is killing us and is forcing an overly simplistic view of the world. I have seen people with significant mech experience from 5/7 RAR or similar overseas units ignored and ridiculed because they aren't from the light world. This - despite CA's focus on making a proper, mechanised and protected force.

 

[ADMk2]

I think he means more of a regional power and the ADF as a whole needs to be 1/3rd bigger, a regular Army of 42000 would mean an additional Brigade, but realistically most likely needs to be around 48000 along with all the support that needs to go along with it.

While the ADF will become more lethal and combat orientated with the AWD NGF LHD and soon new armoured vehicle and protected vehicles Growler F35 C17 etc., the ADF has not grown to a point where it can conduct another INTERFET size operation without drastically overstretching the ADF again without calling up reservist if the have not already done so . All the RAN/RAAF heavy lift would once again stretched to the absolute limit with no additional resources available for other contingencies.

The ADF needs to have the capacity to support a Brigade(min 3x Brigade's needed) long term in the field along with supporting combat/logistics assets from both RAN/RAAF and ADF should also have the ability to intervene at short notice an Op Solace type operation.

Ideally we would need to increase dramatically not only the Army but both RAN/RAAF with both combat and logistic ships and aircraft to achieve this and budget to match of 3% of GDP, I cant see that happening any time soon.

Huh? We were able to support INTERFET in 1999 with 3x battalion groups deployed (barely) but we did. We have since grown by an expanded 2 regular infantry battalions and enablers, plus an expanded Special Operations capability. However even back then we had resources available for other contingencies with 1RAR not deployed at all initially, just as we would now.

So what makes you think we could not support such a deployment more easily now? That expansion was specifically designed to allow us to more easily accomodate such a deployment...

 

[t68]

Huh? We were able to support INTERFET in 1999 with 3x battalion groups deployed (barely) but we did. We have since grown by an expanded 2 regular infantry battalions and enablers, plus an expanded Special Operations capability. However even back then we had resources available for other contingencies with 1RAR not deployed at all initially, just as we would now.

So what makes you think we could not support such a deployment more easily now? That expansion was specifically designed to allow us to more easily accomodate such a deployment...

All well and good on paper, but what is their current strength are we going to have to rob Peter to pay Paul again. At that time DJFHQ had command of 4 under strength Brigades 2x ARA 1x ARA/GRes and 1x GRes that's not including logistical support force, Raven has said on numerous times the deficiencies in supporting the Brigades. the speed of which INTERFET caught out the deficiencies in the ADF overall was mitigated by the professionalism of the ADF, its all well and good having a declared size its the the actual size that counts as capability

 

[old faithful]

In 1999, we had , 1 2,3, 5/7 ,6, 8/9, and 4RAR(CDO) Where do you get the 2 extra now?
Even if 2 RAR was bought to full strength, and 8/9 de-linked and made 9 a light BN, you would effectively achieve what I was suggesting.
At least then, you would be able to rapidly deploy a BN at very short notice.
ATM, we will not be able to deploy anyone except 2Cdo (a Company group) and a Sqn of SASR at very short notice.

 

[ADMk2]

In 1999, we had , 1 2,3, 5/7 ,6, 8/9, and 4RAR(CDO) Where do you get the 2 extra now?
Even if 2 RAR was bought to full strength, and 8/9 de-linked and made 9 a light BN, you would effectively achieve what I was suggesting.
At least then, you would be able to rapidly deploy a BN at very short notice.
ATM, we will not be able to deploy anyone except 2Cdo (a Company group) and a Sqn of SASR at very short notice.

8/9 RAR was disbanded in 1997, after the double chock experiment (Ready Reserve) was killed... In 99, 4RAR (CDO) was still converting to the CDO role and had but a single company at that time. The reality was we had 5 actual battalions available at that time, six on paper with most of them no doubt under strength.

Today we have 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8/9 RAR as well as 2CDO Regt. The extra 2 battalions added back to the RAR (7 RAR and 8/9RAR) were included under the Enhanced Land Force Initiative in 2009.

As for short notice deployment, that is exactly what the ARE is meant to provide, in addition to the SOCOMD elements. The readiness level of any unit varies however, as you no doubt understand.

 

[old faithful]

8/9 RAR was disbanded in 1997, after the double chock experiment (Ready Reserve) was killed... In 99, 4RAR (CDO) was still converting to the CDO role and had but a single company at that time. The reality was we had 5 actual battalions available at that time, six on paper with most of them no doubt under strength.

Today we have 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8/9 RAR as well as 2CDO Regt. The extra 2 battalions added back to the RAR (7 RAR and 8/9RAR) were included under the Enhanced Land Force Initiative in 2009.

As for short notice deployment, that is exactly what the ARE is meant to provide, in addition to the SOCOMD elements. The readiness level of any unit varies however, as you no doubt understand.

Well, you can scrub 2 RAR, better to be called 2IRC (RAR)