I really think that the question is whether or not the army has sufficient armoured mass to undertake the full requirements of five battle groups, plus spare vehicles. That is what I believe that you should be working from and arguing for.
That would be 12 Mechanized companies.
Each of the Mech battalions are 3 x mech infantry companies plus support company.
Support company is a warfighting company, not logistical support, that's admin company.
No news. I was simply taking Takao's 5 BG (15 maneuver element) brigade x 2 concept and articulating what it might look like if you only added tank squadrons.
I did add 2 CRV squadrons to the Cav regiments - these could be tank squadrons though.
So in effect adding 11 tank squadrons.
Generating 2 15 maneuver element brigades in a 27/28 maneuver element army is going to be challenging.
Regards,
Massive
Observer27
New Member
Thanks for the informative discussion. Under Australian doctrine, where would Army aviation fit in. Could it be substituted for one of the BGs? Or would this normally be an additional attachment?
My big question around all this is that given an Amphibious Ready Group only comprises 1 BG HQ with 4 combat teams, aviation and support but consumes all our current amphibious naval assets, what is the likelihood we would ever deploy a full mechanized brigade in the format outlined above? My gut feel is that there is no contingency both urgent enough for us to need to do this, but with enough time for us to deploy using what I suspect would have to be commercial shipping to a safe port under naval escort. Or is this organisational format only for homeland defense - i.e. mostly deterrence - purposes?
Agree support company is at the pointy end, as are really any of the units within the Brigade such as Sigs, engineers, Artillery etc.
An active Brigade is the front line.
Really just talking in broad terms re Coys and Sqn's.
The main point being we have what we have, so if we want to rearrange the structure, role and numbers of Brigades, then this will significantly impact the current numbers of what we have.
I'm all for change.
Just mindful of the reality of wish lists going on what force numbers we have had over the last 5 decades.
Regards S
I would think a massive re organisation of our Reserve forces is in order.we have a lot of bushmasters and motorised infantry for A Res should be given some priority.
We still need flexibility and mobility.
I know that most here are Mechanized and motorised focused.
But it's a long drive to anywhere in this country, and air mobility provides a hell of a lot of flexibility. I'm not talking paras, but light infantry that is well versed on quick tac loading and moving anywhere very quickly. There is only so much commandos can do, when we have 1.5 battalions of them, including reserves.
Air mobility is a specialised role.
You can't just take mech infantry and get them up to speed in a couple of weeks.
It takes a lot more time than that.
Maybe a brigade of light , airmobile infantry should be on the cards. A mix of regular battalions and reserve units.
We still need flexibility and mobility.
I know that most here are Mechanized and motorised focused.
But it's a long drive to anywhere in this country, and air mobility provides a hell of a lot of flexibility. I'm not talking paras, but light infantry that is well versed on quick tac loading and moving anywhere very quickly. There is only so much commandos can do, when we have 1.5 battalions of them, including reserves.
Air mobility is a specialised role.
You can't just take mech infantry and get them up to speed in a couple of weeks.
It takes a lot more time than that.
Maybe a brigade of light , airmobile infantry should be on the cards. A mix of regular battalions and reserve units.
Takao
The Bunker Group
I think you are 100% correct. Additional tanks is a cheap way of expanding capability and complicating an enemies threat picture. Yes, they are big. Yes, they require support. But, as a simple example, look at the difference between a square and a triangle BG... As a REDFOR Coy, even a Soviet-based one with T-80s and lots of ATGM, facing 14 tanks v 28 tanks is horrifying. That type of flexibility would even allow the Australian LTCOL to be quite confident in tackling REDFOR Bn-sized elements.
Even in peacetime this makes sense. You can cut back on RAInf numbers to make up the delta, building in appropriate training and mobilisation plans. That way your initially deployed force is a scary beastie, improving deterrence and allowing politicians to have flexibility in how to respond. Meanwhile your second Bde is rapidly standing up, including absorbing a bunch of new/ARes loggies and infanteers.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Aviation is a Divisional asset. The Bde will be given the aviation effect it needs for a given task, but the Div HQ (or Joint Task Force HQ) will move said aviation assets around the Bde's depending on how the main effort is weighted.
Now, could an Avn BG to some of these tasks? Absolutely. Thank about what a Sqn of Tiger can bring to the fight - 48x AGM-114 and 84x guided 70mm rockets, each of which could kill an IFV. Allowing for misses and active protection, that comfortably can kill the vast majority of a Soviet Mechanised Battalion, and it doesn't really care if that is in the offense or defence (traditionally ground forces need a 3:1 advantage to attack. Lot's of asterixis here). And it can do that quickly, responding faster than anything short of fixed wing, but with more time on station. Of course, the weather needs to be acceptable, and like any other BG, lots of supporting arms will be needed to aid the helicopters moving and surviving.
Nope, the Brigade is the unit of action for the Land Force. It's HQ is capable enough to manage all missions, a BG is just to small. So we expect that a Bde will fight overseas. Now, have we deployed a Bde to Afghanistan or Iraq? No. But we slotted into foreign Bde HQ. Even in Timor-Leste in 1999 we took a Bde, we just substituted out heavy armour and artillery for more engineers and infantry. That's the key to the Bde being a unit of action, it's modular - and can plug and play with everything in the ADF. A BG will struggle in loading up with extra support beyond a Bty or Sqn of engineers; you want to give a Collins to a Bde (the craziest thing I can think of) or JORN? They can manage it, use it and operate with it.
Your point stands though. The ARG can lift a BG. Which is why naval logistics is (and should be) a particular main effort for AHQ to know. The JSS and additional sealift? That's an Army project. Just like the LHD's and DDG's were. Army shouldn't run them (oh gosh no...), but those are essential for our work and we should be loud advocates for them. Remember, lifting that BG or Bde isn't the end of the problem, we will be chewing through thousands of tonnes of materiel each week, it all needs to be lifted. And the vast majority will be by ship. As vital as C-17s are (and airlift in general), it just isn't economical to move bombs, shells, fuel or heavy vehicles by air.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Sorry, I can't see a single justification for light infantry in the ARA, or for a para capability. ARes - I'll address that at the end.
First off is the what's next bit. Take the most famous paratroop operation (one done with hugely more logistics and warfighting capability than the ADF) - Market Garden. The para's seize key terrain, but they have to be relieved - they don't have the depth or the equipment to stand and fight. You need XXX Corps to move quickly. What's the equivalent here? In Australia I'll accept the reinforcing forces can be there within three days (which begs the question, where am I putting this light inf force that sheer distance can't do the job for me?), but overseas? Now, you could launch the reinforcing forces early (so five days sailing means they leave at D-5 and the para's will launch at D), but that's a massive strategic intelligence "look here" note for REDFOR. Normandy works because German doesn't ID the landing vessels have left before the para's launch; MG works because the reinforcing elements are already there. If there are days between leaving Dover and landing at Normandy, how well prepared are the German defenders?
Now what can light infantry do? With a bunch of light vehicles they have some mobility; but they will run out of fuel quickly. A handful of ATGM (noting Australia, like the rest of the west, are woefully undergunned in this area). a handful of 81 mm with maybe two fire missions in them? So they can seize a key asset (bridge), but then what? They can control out to maybe 5000 m. Time and time again, the modern battlefield has shown that light inf can rarely work, and often comes with heavier than needed casualties. As soon as REDFOR know they are there, they know they can just use motorised and towed guns the para force is that woeful. Oh, and prep the armoured formations with SPH for the reinforcing force...
So, without a mission that is feasible, duplicating 3 Bde for a light infantry Bde gives us at least two Bn of light infantry, about 600 people each in peacetime. The ADF is already short positions, 1200 people would fill 4 - 5 SPH Regt, 3 - 4 Tk Regt. Which one is more useful? Yeah, the cost of the equipment is lower, but under that thinking we should get rid of everything and just issue 9mm - there isn't much cheaper.
Finally, while I appreciate that just because every soldier and officer trains in light infantry work first that doesn't make us all light infantry, the honest reality is that after truck driving there is no other role in the ADF easier to learn. The RAR Bn's can pick up the delta faster (certainly much faster than going from light to mech). Look at 1 RAR last year; they rerolled to a dismounted NEO in enough time to do the job well. Even if I need more, taking a random civi to fully qual'd rifleman in jungle warfare will take no more than three months (as more than one senior RAInf person - officer, NCO and WO has told us). Plenty of time. Parachuting is even easier to learn. I will point out that our most successful combat para jump in history was done with soldiers who had done ... 1 practise jump. With static lines and modern parachute tech, anyone can jump.
Which leads on to the ARes question. It needs to be asked, what is their role and what is their point? I know what the doctrinal answer is, but they can't do that. Maintaining their numbers is increasingly hard. I would dearly love to remove a chunk of the seniors and get some youth injected in with ideas - because without a cultural change the olds and bolds have driven it into the ground. There is no quick and dirty answer here (although I have seen the idea of giving all the long range missiles Army buys to the ARes - and really like it), but a serious rethink on their role and mission.
Wow, you put a lot of effort and thought into addressing something I did not put out there.
Where did I say we need paras?
I.said air mobile light infantry.
Australia is big and our region or AO is also very big.
Moving mech or motorised infantry from the east coast to say, the Pilbara, East Timor or PNG will take weeks.
Light infantry, properly trained in airmobile operations, can harrass, delay, and hold key areas until the fighting force arrives.
Otherwise, you can potentially allow an enemy to hold, build up and prepare, unopposed for that arrival. Sure you could use other assets, like airforce or navy or SF. But that reduces their ability to conduct other tasks that may may stretch their capabilities.
Air mobile infantry is a good, effective way to conduct these operations.
Training and equipping light infantry is relatively cheap. And I can assure you, that training light infantry to be mounted in cars, is a lot easier than training mounted infantry to be airmobile infantry.
I will give one example.
On ex K92, conducted in the NT in the build up to the wet season, Bravo Company 3 RAR parachuted into Victoria River Station, some 800km from Katherine, and married up with 3/4 Cav and instantly became mounted infantry. That took a few hours.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Ha! That key phrase kinda gave it away... "I'm not talking para's". Ooops! Sorry!
I still can't agree sorry. Not for the ARA. Getting a lightly armed, lightly armoured, barely mobile force somewhere quickly is a quick recipe for coffins, especially against a threat with any form of combined arms capability. It also makes a predictable and slow to respond force. The US Army lost thousands of helos in Vietnam in an AO much smaller than ours.... we don't have that rotary or fixed wing depth. Especially with our current RW fleet.
If I need a light infantry force the regular motorised or mech Bn can rapidly rerole. Meanwhile they provide actual capability.
So either the cars were there (negating the need for inserting infantry forces because a modern CT / BG will have the dismounts with them, or the cars didn't take that long to get there. Shifting heavy materiel within Australia is 'reasonably' easy, especially with our rail network.
Plus, if you are talking the wet season, who is realistically fighting up there? Any invasion force isn't mobile, it's ALOC and SLOC very, very vulnerable to weather and interdiction. Even if we are the 'invading' force (a'la Timor 1999), without the vehicles we are pointless, in wet season weather, helo's are often grounded. Without vehicles in Timor we would have been screwed. Against a minor threat like Afghanistan or Iraq, we would have been stuck.
All up, light infantry has given Australia and the Army some of its finest moments, fitting building blocks for heritage. Infantry remains an absolutely essential building block of the Army for the foreseeable future. The Cult of Light Infantry has done more damage to the current of future Army than any other thing. The last thing we need is any coming back into the ARA.
Which begs another question, is infantry specialization a good thing for our sized army.
We have had only around 6 inf battalions, plus or minus for the last 50 years.
Niche has its benefits, but would we be better off with infantry flexibility.
Plan Bathsheba initially had the infantry battalions light and separate.
Australia Revamps Reserve Brigades under Plan BeerSheba - Defense Update:
Plan BeerSheba announced by the Australian Defence on December 12, 2011 aims to ensure that the country continues to contribute forces to operations including Afghanistan and successfully transition to a force that is able to respond effectively to future challenges, including humanitarian...
defense-update.com
Get a lift in a PMV to then load up in a APC then get taken by air to do something else.
No tribes here.
The APC, IFV , PMV , Aviation owners have their own skill sets, the warm bodies inside also have theirs.
They are all in the same army with the ability to talk and work with each other.
Cheers S
Takao
The Bunker Group
Absolutely.
There is no difference between a 6 RAR section commander and a journeyman; between a 3 RAR Pl SGT or CSM and a master of trade. Modern infantry is as much a trade as a plumber or electrician, it's hard work that requires specialised knowledge. I take the micky out of my RAInf peers, but I can't do all that a Inf officer does and my trade WOs sure as hell can't match a RAInf WO.
Do we need as many Inf Bn in the ARA? That's an excellent question and I've long advocated to cutting by half or 1/3, using the ARes to fill out the replacement force with one Bn acting as 'seed'. But hey, in an Army built on the Cult of Light Infantry, that's a no goer! It also comes down to - what is the ARes for and how does it do it?
That may be so, but what about the cost of salaries? Housing? Allowances? Health insurance? Other benefits? Pensions? Veterans Affairs?
The equipment may be cheap but the people operating it are not.
ARes / ARA
The modern work force is changing dramatically.
Both work life balance and people having a number of different employers at the same time.
An opportunity for defence.
I can see some reservist doing 50% of their working year in uniform and the other 50% in another sector or variations of that mix.
Something for defence to explore.
Regards S
buffy9
Well-Known Member
There is the issue of civilian employers as well - having them dedicate 50% of their time elsewhere is a hard pill to swallow for many businesses. Its difficult to see any business taking this without asking for compensation in return, which drives up the costs significantly.
"Superchocs" definitely exist though, even in high income industries. Perhaps it is worth seeing how these individuals balance X number of days in Defence with their civvie careers?
Last edited:
Training an individual soldier may be easier for an armoured infantry role, rather than airmobile. Training units collectively to build an overall combined arms capability however I’d suggest is a different story, and one Army as a whole has to consider.
Last edited:
I am all for army reserve providing light infantry.
However! The reserves need to be way more accountable. They need to turn up on training days.
With coastal missile batteries planned, and other units we did not have before, they will need protection. We cannot afford to borrow companies from our Mech units for these tasks.
Most of you seem to underestimate the flexibility and actual use of light infantry. A recipe for body bags you say?
What about an AIFV hit by a guided anti tank missile the crew didn't even know was coming?
9 dead eggs in that basket and a priority vehicle gone in one hit.
Any way. I really don't think there is a good understanding of what light infantry can do, and has done for thousands of years.
In Afghanistan, we used our special forces as light infantry.
The Brits and yanks used light infantry as light infantry, and special forces in their roles.
We have have room for building up our Army. We now have a big population compared to the 80s, and we also have the means to support and fund a bigger Army.
3 mech, 3 motorised, and 1 half bn of marine infantry does not cut it for our current threat environment.
3 or even another 2 regular battalions are needed and have been needed for 50 years.
Those 2 battalions should be Swiss Army knives.
I will tell you now in no bullshit manner.
If we get a Labor government.
Those Mech battalions will once again become vehicle maintenance battalions.
Make those soldiers put on a pack at short notice and send them to PNG or similar areas, and they will struggle for a few weeks at the very least. Any way, you lot seem to have closed your minds to the idea, so be it.
Some of you seem to think of infantry formations in a similar way to a ship or a squadron of aircraft, and look at the capabilities they can bring in a combined package. And that's great if the scenario allows for a combined package.
I am of the view that in our current climate, that some "foreign interference " in the way of shit stirring in our region , will tie up some of our forces as a distraction. Art of war and all that.
Keep us busy spending money and sending assets to small problems, that will probably require light infantry.
However! The reserves need to be way more accountable. They need to turn up on training days.
With coastal missile batteries planned, and other units we did not have before, they will need protection. We cannot afford to borrow companies from our Mech units for these tasks.
Most of you seem to underestimate the flexibility and actual use of light infantry. A recipe for body bags you say?
What about an AIFV hit by a guided anti tank missile the crew didn't even know was coming?
9 dead eggs in that basket and a priority vehicle gone in one hit.
Any way. I really don't think there is a good understanding of what light infantry can do, and has done for thousands of years.
In Afghanistan, we used our special forces as light infantry.
The Brits and yanks used light infantry as light infantry, and special forces in their roles.
We have have room for building up our Army. We now have a big population compared to the 80s, and we also have the means to support and fund a bigger Army.
3 mech, 3 motorised, and 1 half bn of marine infantry does not cut it for our current threat environment.
3 or even another 2 regular battalions are needed and have been needed for 50 years.
Those 2 battalions should be Swiss Army knives.
I will tell you now in no bullshit manner.
If we get a Labor government.
Those Mech battalions will once again become vehicle maintenance battalions.
Make those soldiers put on a pack at short notice and send them to PNG or similar areas, and they will struggle for a few weeks at the very least. Any way, you lot seem to have closed your minds to the idea, so be it.
Some of you seem to think of infantry formations in a similar way to a ship or a squadron of aircraft, and look at the capabilities they can bring in a combined package. And that's great if the scenario allows for a combined package.
I am of the view that in our current climate, that some "foreign interference " in the way of shit stirring in our region , will tie up some of our forces as a distraction. Art of war and all that.
Keep us busy spending money and sending assets to small problems, that will probably require light infantry.
"Australian Army soldiers from the 2nd Combat Engineer Regiment begin recovery operations on Atata island during Operation Tonga Assist 2022."
Image Source : ADF Image Library
Image Source : ADF Image Library
With discussions here about tank numbers and the requirement for and against…could there be a role in the ADF for a fire support vehicle? Rheinmetall presents the Lynx 120 mechanised fire support vehicle - APDR