Yes I agree. If we put observors in the US Army turreted mortar trial it will be a good, low cost to Australia, way to compare all options.
The M3 only has a limited life due to the composite barrel. The M4s are being bought using sustainment funding to replace worn out M3s.
Probably has to be AGM - not a lot of other options that make sense.
Regards,
Massive
t68
Well-Known Member
Any idea why the upgraded M2 Bradley is not contesting Land 400, after all it was designed to keep up with Abrams
Rebuilding The M2 Bradley: Same A4 Turret But Most Is New
Rebuilding The M2 Bradley: Same A4 Turret But Most Is New
I wonder why they request for 6 dismounts.
Is this to open up the options to more manufacturers or is this deemed the best tactical number for future mechanised forces.
Interested on the feed back.
Regards S
Just to add to the questions.
Why are we going for the 30mm calibre for both Land 400 vehicles (Phase 2 and 3)
I would of thought today with ballistic computers and stabilisation that weapon accuracy is now so good that the ability to carry fewer, but larger rounds would be the way forward.
Firepower at greater distance and range of ammunition types! 40mm v 30mm.
Just a thought
Regards S
Why are we going for the 30mm calibre for both Land 400 vehicles (Phase 2 and 3)
I would of thought today with ballistic computers and stabilisation that weapon accuracy is now so good that the ability to carry fewer, but larger rounds would be the way forward.
Firepower at greater distance and range of ammunition types! 40mm v 30mm.
Just a thought
Regards S
The reason is Plan KEOGH. Under the previous Plan BEERSHEEBA structure (or more accurately the Infantry 2012/Modernised Infantry Battalion/Standard Infantry Battalion structure), the rifle platoon was organised to be independent of any vehicle lift. The rifle section was eight strong, which was to be lifted by M113 or PMV (crewed by the ACR or CSSB) when needed. Therefore under that structure the IFV needed to be able to fit eight dismounts to lift a rifle section.
Under Plan KEOGH, the infantry battalion has been restructured so the vehicle crew is part of the rifle section (be it either M113 or PMV). The rifle section is now back to nine strong which means a rifle section in the IFV battalion will have a three man crew and a six man dismount element, while the PMV battalion will have a dedicated driver and an eight man dismount element. Of course, they can also be employed in a dismounted role with a full nine man dismount element.
Therefore the Land 400 Phase 3 vehicle now only need to be able to lift six dismounts. Personally I think a vehicle that can lift eight dismounts will still have a big advantage, as it adds lots of flexibility to fiddle with the section structure yet again, plus adds room for any attachments and extra equipment.
Calibre for auto cannons is always a trade off between individual lethality and number of stowed rounds. Basically you want to work out the smallest calibre that has the lethality required, because that way you can carry the maximum summer of rounds. As part of Land 400 there was a study on the effectiveness of 30mm and 35mm rounds against likely target sets. The basic conclusion was the number of target sets that the 35mm could defeat, but the 30mm couldn’t, wasn’t worth the additional size of the 35mm. It’s a relatively simple matter to swap out guns for a larger caliber if need be in the future however.
Thanks Raven for the reply.
I've read about Plan Keogh and get that its the current way forward. I must confess however to still not understanding the logic.
Yes infantry section now has ownership of vehicle so I guess whether your motorised of mechanised this integration has an efficiency that the former relationship of infantry using the ACR and CSSM as a taxi service did not provide.
I guess the answer I'm looking for is what is the structure for when the dismounts move away from their respective vehicles.
For the mechanised infantry will they ever be away from their vehicle for long periods of time. If so, is it just the Six dismounts from each vehicle or is the expectation that the vehicle crew also dismount and fight on foot. Not sure how that works, so assume dismounts will always be close to vehicle.
Maybe part of the answer will be how may vehicles for a platoon.
For PMV and motorised infantry I guess similar questions, but in relation to the bushmasters carrying capacity.
I can never understand the bushmaster not operating without a minimum of two crew. ( Driver and Weapon operator )
So do we still have seven seats in the back or are we reconfiguring the bushmaster to carry 8 in the back as standard.
I cannot feel Keogh is more about economising numbers in the Brigade rather than truly having the most efficient system to achieve an end.
The brick and section of 8 made sense and if it could be replicated with the ownership structure of Keogh then maybe I get it.
Raven I certainly don't have your experience and as always appreciate you feedback, but to a layman like myself it just looks messy.
I hope it comes together in a meaningful way
Regards S
In the armoured battalion (as the mechanised battalion will be known when the IFV turns up), the crew is an integral part of the rifle section. Unless the battalion decides to leave the vehicles at home and just fight light (which is still an option, albeit with a lower level of training), the vehicle and dismount element fight as a mini combined arms team. They are each of part of the capability brick, with each not able to operate away from the other for any period of time. This is obviously how everyone operates their mech/armoured infantry.
The PMV battalion is better thought of as a light battalion that happens to own its own protected mobility. In this case, the vehicle is not an inseparable part of the section, and the dismount element can operate away from the vehicle for however long they need to. While mounted, the section commander will sit in the front left seat and command the vehicle, while one of the LSW gunners will stand in the cupola and man whatever machine gun is mounted. There are a few options when the dismount, but normally the driver will stay with the vehicle in some form of Zulu muster while the section commander leads the eight man dismount element away from the vehicle.
You are absolutely right that the Plan KEOGH structures are designed to save personnel numbers. The army’s leadership made a deliberate decision to do so in order to find warm bodies to man emerging capabilities like long range fires, GBAD, cyber etc. It’s hard to fault their logic in that regard. As I’ve mentioned before, flexibility and efficiency are two sides of the ones coin. The Plan BEERSHEEBA structures were very flexible, but also very inefficient. The Plan KEOGH structure loses a lot of flexibility, but is very efficient. I think the move to dedicated mech/armoured battalions is a good thing, although I’m ambivalent about the second battalion having PMVs.
The idea of mounting an old standard infantry battalion in IFVs manned by the ACR didn’t make a lot of sense. For example, what is the point in having a manoeuvre support section with machine guns and 84s, when the platoon is mounted in vehicles with 30mm cannons and 4000m+ ranged ATGM. A single vehicle would provide more manoeuvre support than that section ever would. Same for the mortar platoon. Because the standard infantry battalion had to be able to fight dismounted, when mounted in IFVs all they were ever good to have is 81mm mortars in the back of a mortar carrier. With a dedicated mech battalion, it opens up the possibility for things like 120mm NEMO (hence the RFI recently released).
The biggest issue is simply giving such a complicated vehicle (the IFV, not M113) to the infantry. The infantry is just not prepared to crew such a complicated vehicle. I’ve been part of handing the M113s back to the infantry, and even that ridiculously simple vehicle is taxing their ability. The IFV will be more complicated to operate than the current M1 - the current infantry way of doing business will utterly fail to operate the vehicle well. I think you will see the infantry split into two streams, armoured and light, with careers progressing in one or the other. That is the only way to maintain enough mounted skills in the battalions to operate the IFV.
The PMV battalion is better thought of as a light battalion that happens to own its own protected mobility. In this case, the vehicle is not an inseparable part of the section, and the dismount element can operate away from the vehicle for however long they need to. While mounted, the section commander will sit in the front left seat and command the vehicle, while one of the LSW gunners will stand in the cupola and man whatever machine gun is mounted. There are a few options when the dismount, but normally the driver will stay with the vehicle in some form of Zulu muster while the section commander leads the eight man dismount element away from the vehicle.
You are absolutely right that the Plan KEOGH structures are designed to save personnel numbers. The army’s leadership made a deliberate decision to do so in order to find warm bodies to man emerging capabilities like long range fires, GBAD, cyber etc. It’s hard to fault their logic in that regard. As I’ve mentioned before, flexibility and efficiency are two sides of the ones coin. The Plan BEERSHEEBA structures were very flexible, but also very inefficient. The Plan KEOGH structure loses a lot of flexibility, but is very efficient. I think the move to dedicated mech/armoured battalions is a good thing, although I’m ambivalent about the second battalion having PMVs.
The idea of mounting an old standard infantry battalion in IFVs manned by the ACR didn’t make a lot of sense. For example, what is the point in having a manoeuvre support section with machine guns and 84s, when the platoon is mounted in vehicles with 30mm cannons and 4000m+ ranged ATGM. A single vehicle would provide more manoeuvre support than that section ever would. Same for the mortar platoon. Because the standard infantry battalion had to be able to fight dismounted, when mounted in IFVs all they were ever good to have is 81mm mortars in the back of a mortar carrier. With a dedicated mech battalion, it opens up the possibility for things like 120mm NEMO (hence the RFI recently released).
The biggest issue is simply giving such a complicated vehicle (the IFV, not M113) to the infantry. The infantry is just not prepared to crew such a complicated vehicle. I’ve been part of handing the M113s back to the infantry, and even that ridiculously simple vehicle is taxing their ability. The IFV will be more complicated to operate than the current M1 - the current infantry way of doing business will utterly fail to operate the vehicle well. I think you will see the infantry split into two streams, armoured and light, with careers progressing in one or the other. That is the only way to maintain enough mounted skills in the battalions to operate the IFV.
Maybe I might be reading it wrong, but I am concerned that when the infantry IFV crew return to the vehicle after accompanying a patrol in a dodgey neighbourhood, they don't find it on blocks with its 'wheels and battery' stolen.
I presume the SOP will stipulate they leave it locked & don't forget the keys!
Perhaps the concept might evolve further to keep a crew to secure the vehicle?
(I have sudden visions of the Light Horse....)
I presume the SOP will stipulate they leave it locked & don't forget the keys!
Perhaps the concept might evolve further to keep a crew to secure the vehicle?
(I have sudden visions of the Light Horse....)
I can see the logic of the crew being part of the Secton, but for Australian use, such a small army, (small infantry army) its very inflexible, and I can fore see that one day, plan Keogh,Beersheba, will be replaced by plan xxxx, just like the pentropic brigades were changed etc....if the vehicles are handed over to armoured corp, which I have no doubt that one day they will, I wonder if they will raise their own veges?
IMO , this is what should have happend any way. Leave the RAR as it is, and and raise a couple of cav recon units, then hand over the IFV,s to the Armoured corp. I am not a fan at all of these composite armoured units. No doubt I will cop an ear full from Raven....
IMO , this is what should have happend any way. Leave the RAR as it is, and and raise a couple of cav recon units, then hand over the IFV,s to the Armoured corp. I am not a fan at all of these composite armoured units. No doubt I will cop an ear full from Raven....
Having the IFV crew as an 'integral part of the infantry section' implies that:
Their number leaves the vehicle to participate in the dismounted operation, to complete the section.
This will leave the vehicle unattended, correct?
To solve this perhaps they Harbour the vehicles (like dismounted Light Horse), with a token number maintaining the Harbour.
If the crew, in practice, tend to remain with the vehicle, then in practice the carried infantry section is now less the crew numbers.
-We then end up retuning to where we started from, a dedicated crew and a dedicated dismount section.
I don't get it?
Their number leaves the vehicle to participate in the dismounted operation, to complete the section.
This will leave the vehicle unattended, correct?
To solve this perhaps they Harbour the vehicles (like dismounted Light Horse), with a token number maintaining the Harbour.
If the crew, in practice, tend to remain with the vehicle, then in practice the carried infantry section is now less the crew numbers.
-We then end up retuning to where we started from, a dedicated crew and a dedicated dismount section.
I don't get it?
No, you've got it backwards. The IFV will never be left alone. The IFV is an integral part of the section in so far as the vehicle and dismounts are part of one coherent whole. You can't take one away from the other, because they both depend on each other. They are a mini combined arms team. I thought my last post was pretty clear.
If you hand the vehicles over to the armoured corps to raise their own dismounts, as you say, all you would then have is the same mech battalion manned by RAAC instead of infantry soldiers. Nothing else would change. Other than the infantry being almost entirely irrelevant.
The 'leave the RAR as it is' attitude is the very attitude the needs to be overcome. It's the attitude that has an army preparing the last war, instead of the next. The world continues to change, and the Army needs to change with it. I think the Australian infantry would do well to look at the British Army, where a fanatical resistance to change (and a fanatical desire to retain cap badges) has lead to brigade after brigade of almost entirely useless light infantry with no support and no role, while the part of the Army that is useful continues to shrink. Thankfully the leaders in Australia are more sensible, as it was infantry commanders that made the decisions to reduce the size of the infantry to fund other capabilities.
As I said earlier though, I expect a vehicle that can fit eight dismounts to have an advantage, as it does leave flexibility to change things in future.
There's still a strong feeling in the ranks of the long retired that the Army (and especially the Infantry) should still be organised on Vietnam War era principles, let alone last war. I too served in the era of (theoretical) 10 man sections, 34 man platoons, three platoon companies, four rifle companies to the battalion etc. but things have changed (and changed again, and again) since then and we are no longer preparing every soldier to fight insurgents in jungles with sometimes just one radio per platoon.
But many have let that truth pass them by.
oldsig
Thanks again Raven for the well worded and detailed response.
For myself the transition keeps raising more and more questions which I'm sure where all asked by senior "Sirs" when when articulating our future brigade structure.
The concept of how in real terms the vehicle/crew and dismounts operate as a mini combined arms team is what puzzles me.
I assume in distance the dismounts are always a very short distances from the vehicle in the role of mechanised Infantry. I'm wondering how the command structure works as even over very short distances ( Urban and Close terrain ) I can envisage the enemy being closer than the support IFV ,leaving the troops on the ground having to make some pretty quick and tactically crucial decisions without reference to vehicle bound commanders.
Also do the IFV dismounts work as a large brick or small section when away from their vehicles? Also how does this fit while dismounted as a platoon away from vehicles Sgt in charge or Cpl Four vehicles = 4 x 6 dismounts. Do they work as a group or are they constantly under instruction from the vehicle
Regarding the mounted Infantry I guess similar questions but probably over greater distances.
Still don't know how comfortable a lone drive with vehicle even as a group mustered together would feel with their dismounts.off on a mission. Six to Eight vehicles banded together with similar number of Pax to defend both themselves ( Self preservation ) and their vehicles and mission seems a bit open to vulnerabilities even in a light military environment over a short time.................... Looks a bit either scary, or budget economy to me.
If the dismounts from both the PMV and IFV could still be a section of 8 with the vehicles still crewed ( Bushmaster 2 PAX and IFV 3 Pax ) whether with or without dismounts I think I could get the rationale. IE: Motorised infantry have a section of TEN and Motorised Infantry have a section of ELEVEN.
Certainly get that fire support from a gunned up vehicle renders some changes in the traditional support company. Can envisage a range of direct and in direct weapon systems used off vehicles at company / Sqn level
Maybe it could be dispensed with or become a fourth company in the battalion
Thanks again
Regards S
Last edited:
Agreed. The Vietnam-itude has been incredibly damaging to the army over the last 20 years. It can only be hoped that Afghan-itude doesn’t do the same over the next 20 years.
Oddly enough, however, those that look back to the good old days of Vietnam often miss a lot of the lessons learned from Vietnam. For example, it’s almost exactly 50 years since the battle of Coral-Balmoral, which was one of the few times 1 ATF fought a conventional battle against formed bodies of the NVA. The lessons of Coral-Balmoral are the same as the lessons of every other battle over the last 100 years - the importance of combined arms (armour, artillery, aviation etc), the importance of shared understanding and coordination between the arms and services, the importance of efficient staff work at formation level etc etc. Somehow the only lessons that were internalised were the platoon level jungle skills. The cynic would probably argue that those were the only lessons internalised because they were the only lessons that the army could afford to implement in the resource limited 30 years following Vietnam. It’s hard to learn the lesson of, say, the importance of tank-infantry cooperation when the Army can’t afford tanks.
Last edited:
The six dismounts are broken into two 3-man fire teams, and will operate the same way the two four-man fire teams used to, obviously with just one less member. The commander will always be with the main effort, so if the main effort is dismounted then the commander will also dismount. In that case the vehicles will generally be commanded by the mech corporal or mech sergeant. The exact ways to go about this are very technical and depend on unit SOPs.
You need to remember what happened before the PMVs were invented. In the good old days (ie, a couple of years ago), the light infantry used to get driven around the place by trucks (generally Unimogs), either from the battalion's transport platoon or from the CSSB. Those trucks would have a single, generally very junior, driver in each, and that's it. If he was lucky the packet commander might have a map and radio, but he usually didn't. He simply got told to drive somewhere, pick up some grunts, then drive somewhere else. Compared to that, the idea of a few Bushmasters, each being armoured, having integral radios, and being driven by an infantryman, being in a zulu muster somewhere is not that big a deal.
To expand, the exact same thing happened in Afghanistan. The PMVs attached to the special operations task group were driven by whatever random diggers could be found spare in a brigade with a driver's ticket, normally under the command of an RAAC officer. They would be told to drive the operators somewhere, who would then jump out and go off to do their mission, and the drivers would sit somewhere in a zulu muster, without any security. When the mission was complete, the PMVs would drive unescorted to where ever they needed to go to pick up the operators, often through unsecured areas and often through harassing fire. It was pretty loose compared to what the conventional diggers over the fence were doing, but it worked well enough.
As an aside, if you are interested in a bit of reading, the Army has declassified a lot of doctrine and put it online - Doctrine: Army Doctrine | Australian Army.
It is all pretty high level, as none of the procedural doctrine has been uploaded, but may still satisfy some curiosity. If they ever upload the mounted minor tactics pam or the brigade concept of employment document, that would be of particular interest to you.