If you think 75 tanks is a worthwhile investment that's fine. Id be trying to create a situation whereby they're not needed in the 1st place. Unless you want a deployable force, which we don't have the manpower for and given our experience of overseas deployments is not going to end well. WWII we were lucky and now the US is spread too thin and has its own issues both internally and with Europe. As Old Faithful says it may be too late anyway...
It's not just "75 tanks" though is it? It's also the several hundred future IFV's that will integrate with them, ditto for K9, MLRS and so on. It is also the corporate knowledge that they make possible (that, again, cannot be regenerated at short notice) and the core close combat capability that they are central to. The fact that there are "only 59-75" is evidence that they are, if anything, too few in number. Again, @Takao has rather eloquently explained why in this very thread.
You mean NLAW-like I suppose? Because there are weapons like it, e.g the Spike SR which is in production for numerous customers already.
Investing in components for it will likely lead to unnecessarily prolonged retention that will hurt ADF capabilities. Replacement by a 5th gen missile (e.g Spike/MMP) opens up capabilities that allow increasing ATGM density, such as it being pocket artillery against NLOS soft and hardened targets alike.
This approach never worked. If your plan doesn't include ~2 layers of backup, it's not a plan.
aviationweek.com
Nobody is suggesting that MBTs/IFVs are invulnerable. In the right circumstances anything can be vulnerable. The impression I get is that you re too fixated on their vulnerability rather than looking at ways both can contribute; the various ways MBTs/IFVs can operate as part of combined arms formations in support of national objectives
Even if the Russians were not underperforming they still would have taken losses from MBT LAW and other weapons. Perhaps less losses but losses would still have occurred. As it stands however we have no idea as to actual losses.
You're basing that on the current conflict... But given so many of the confirmed Russian losses have been tanks captured or abandoned (101 and 39, respectively, out of 228 losses confirmed by photos/videos), I think the lessons are much more in the realms of "have competent logistics"; "your troops should actually, ya know, have at least some morale" and "don't time your operation for the start of neck deep mud season" rather than "tanks are easy pickings".
Agree, One thing i always think about is, when it Rains in Australia, Tracks on an IFV are a must!
I'm of the belief if Russia had an "Active Protection System" more so "Air Superiority" it would be a different ball game !
I have sat quietly and watched DEFPROs and others who are more knowledgeable than I about armoured warfare patiently try to explain to you why there are errors in your assumptions. However you have just doubled down and dug in refusing to budge. Hence I have to ask a couple of questions:
Talking about armour is fine. But you want to ignore the realities of the way Russia is employing it’s armour, compared to the way a competent user would employ such.Not going to talk about spending tens of Billions on TANKs/IFVs for the future ADF anymore.
Clearly here you are not popular if you suggest they will be too vulnerable on the future battlefield .
But just thought I would illustrate another lethal challenge heavy armour will have to deal with in the very near future (or that Russian armour will have to deal with shortly!) A mortar fired soldier/truck/tank killing drone.
Switchblade 600 can loiter for 40 minutes or fly 40 km from launch site and then loiter for 20 mins. Has an anti tank warhead.
View attachment 49027View attachment 49028View attachment 49029
View attachment 49030AeroVironment Unveils Switchblade 600 Loitering Missile | Aviation Week Network
The Switchblade 600 is designed to fly about 40 km in 20 min., then loiter in the target area for another 20 min.
Very expensive way to use up Javelin Rounds or equiv, and very dangerous. In an operational Zone these Vehicles would be travelling in convoys with anything up to and including ARVs, IFVs, Lt Tactical Vehicles armed with HMGs, Grenade Launchers, on call Air Support, as escorts,. Also the new ADF Trucks are themselves Armoured
To reply to your post in reversse Australian trucks being armored (approx 40% if memeory serves?) does not mean the Russian trucks are all armored so careful not to compare one nation to another.
My reference was to the final line in Seaspears post concerning ADF Vehicles and how they would operate. Not taking Logistics seriously is a very good way to lose a war and Logistics vehicles do not tend to be operating right up to the front line, so they are more likely to run into small teams behind the lines, who are far more likely to be carrying light RCLs(66,84mm), HMGs, Grenade Launchers then a high end ATGW like a Javelin. And realistically how many ATGW shots are you going to get off before either counter fire hits your position or the Convoy moves out of your Kill Zone. In this scenario Automatic Weapons such as MGs and Grenade Launchers that can hit multiple Vehicles at the same time is a far better option then a high end ATGW.
Then that is fair enough, while I still wouldn't discount ATGM's being used against our logistical capability with the amount we have to the logistical requirements of our forces in the Australian context then it would be marginal at best the impact it would have (depending on amount of forces and logistics deployed for what ever scenario and in what location of the world etc)
They are armored for small arms fire , i doubt they would stop an anti tank weapon..
No such thig as perfection in Warfare, no matter what you come up with there are always issues with any plan. Small operating Team behind enemy lines means you have to transport everything you need to conduct operations and it will need to be for an extended period. Your Drones are Electric, so you need a charging capability or Batteries, you need to carry the Ordinance for the Drones and there use is as a first strike weapon only. Once you are in contact with opposing forces you can't recall and reload them anywhere near fast enough to be useful.