OT (this is the Australian Army thread, after all) but the above does need to be addressed.
Its the old story, it doesn’t matter that Tank A is better then Tank B if.
Which I always thought was well summed up in this scene at the end of the "Band of Brothers" TV show :
Yes that scene sums it up perfectly, just noticed something i have never noticed before there is a Sherman sitting on a Trailer being pulled behind a truck on the R/H side.
You mean like fitting Spike LR to Boxer? Someone already thought of that, and I bet it will also apply to the new IFV
The Army is currently receiving between 400-600 of the latest 84mm Carl Gustav RCL, we are getting the MK 47 AGL, we have no shortage of Bushmasters to operate teams out of, the Hawkei’s and Bushmasters can both be fitted with RCS systems for 12.7mm MGs and the MK 47. I don’t think we are going to be short on Weapons for use against lighter Armour and non Armoured Vehicles etc.
Forgot about that, thanks. Great so people are worried about a problem that doesn't exist and where it might we have or have ordered equipment that would rectify it ugh.
Spike LR2 was chosen to replace Javelin in the longer term as well and new short-ranged anti-armour weapons and Loitering munitions under LAND 159 on their way…
Suggest people watch Youtubes by The Chieftain, where he deals with tank myths and presents actual combat losses of both vehicles and crews.
There is a post on the RAN thread from @alexsa about the STS, worth having a read. The eventual LCH replacement when it happens is going to be at the very least a JP program, there is no way the Army currently posses the skillset to operate a Vessel of this size.
Thanks, I had a look but basically what I already posted. I'd agree with you that Army is not in a position to operate the vessel, but they'll certainly want some input given the ever-growing importance of being able to manouvre in the region. Here's hoping we can watch and learn from the USN program, just as others have been watching our IFV replacement competition.
Given Alexsa's professional experience I believe that he has assessed the situation pretty well. FYI he had years as a bridge watch keeping officer in the RAN and has worked in the maritime industry since.
Perhaps he deleted a post in the RAN thread, but there wasn't anything different from my post, other than referencing Austal bidding for both programs, so not sure why you're referencing his service history.
Absolutely. It seems people overlook how numerous battles between Australia and Japan played out, with regards to the devastating impact tanks had on the outcome of a particular days battle. Rather, I think people tend to focus on the final outcome. We might've won a battle, but the employment of Japanese amour in assisting the ground forces in defence or offense was significant with achieving objectives or time frames, not to mention, the loss of life. I have no doubt armour, such as the Abrams and new IFV, will play a key role in SEA ARCOPS. They'll be made all the more effective with a suitable, flexible solution such as what the USN has in mind.