To add to previous discussions in regards to the value of heavy armour in the Australian context following Russia's poor performance in Ukraine, it appears Ukraine's counter offensive has been a text book combined arms operation.
Russia deployed massed heavy armour in columns, with old school logistics models, including supply dumps at rail heads, and suffered a lot of attrition from the light and mobile defenders.
Many jumped on the bandwagon claiming this was the end of heavy armour, etc.
Ukraine has now launched a successful counteroffensive, using combined arms. My understanding is small numbers of tanks were used in concert with other arms in a text book operation.
It appears, when used intelligently, heavy armour remains extremely effective.
It's not what you've got, it's how you use it that matters. Or more to the point, just because the other guy is bigger or has more than you, doesn't mean he can use it as well, or is accomplished in as you are in other areas.
For anyone who missed the innuendo, you don't cut your d!ck off because the other guy appears to be hung like a donkey.
Russia deployed massed heavy armour in columns, with old school logistics models, including supply dumps at rail heads, and suffered a lot of attrition from the light and mobile defenders.
Many jumped on the bandwagon claiming this was the end of heavy armour, etc.
Ukraine has now launched a successful counteroffensive, using combined arms. My understanding is small numbers of tanks were used in concert with other arms in a text book operation.
It appears, when used intelligently, heavy armour remains extremely effective.
It's not what you've got, it's how you use it that matters. Or more to the point, just because the other guy is bigger or has more than you, doesn't mean he can use it as well, or is accomplished in as you are in other areas.
For anyone who missed the innuendo, you don't cut your d!ck off because the other guy appears to be hung like a donkey.
Hi Volk
In today's ASPI, an article from Malcolm Davis re Australia's armoured forces, including Land 400 Phase 3.
.
Thoughts!
Cheers S
He's dead right about the systems of systems approach and how the IFV (& MBT) has to be seen as that. One lesson that Ukraine has driven home is that tanks without infantry support are easy and dead meat (relatively speaking); and that combined arms is the best method. The other point that he raises but doesn't really address is AFV / combined arms defence against UAVs, especially swarming UAVs. That is something that the Australian Army is going to have to seriously consider because the PLA-GF will have them, heaps of them.
.....and after this conflict in Ukraine, everyone is going to have heaps of them.
There must be some serious soul searching across all militaries to find a cheap counter to drones - particularly drone swarms.
Many of the current solutions to drones are far more costly than the drones themselves - and yes some of the solution may cost less than an MBT but drones are also taking out squads and even individual soldiers.
It needs addressing as a matter of urgency
MB
It didn't help that many units were below strength; that some units were only told they were going in a few days before; that the political leadership was under the illusion that the Ukrainians would fold and that for the past decade or so Russian military modernisation was not geared towards a protected large scale high school intensity conflict.
There is no current alternative to the MBT when it comes to deployed mobile and protected firepower. It's often forgotten that MBTs were deployed very effectively in Vietnam by the Australians, Yanks and Vietnamese [both sides].
Last edited:
The signs have long been there way before the Russian invasion. We saw the innovative use of UASs by non state actors in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. We saw how effective UASs and loitering munitions can be in the Donbas [the Russians deployed UASs at a very effectively at a tactical level], Libya and Nargano Karabakh. In Syria we saw the Turks deploy UASs extremely effectively against the Syrians and Kurds.
The attacks on the 2 Saudi facilities and the 2 Russian bases in Syria come to mind.
As it stands there's no alternative to a layered and networked GBAD supported by soft kill solutions but how many armies can afford this in the numbers and density
needed.
Last edited:
I remember reading that when I was at school. The defeat of the first Israeli counterattack after the Egyptian crossing of the Suez canal in October 1973 was given as a recent example.
I was having a nose through the Hanwha website earlier and they have some AAA / VSHORAD solutions. One is the BIHO system Hanwha Defense which is a turret with twin 30mm cannon and four 6km range SAM. The other is the BIHO II ADS turret Hanwha Defense which has its own radar and can be networked, plus its built to NATO standards. It takes either the 30mm or 40 mm cannon plus various SAM. Given Hanwha's track record it most likely would be possible for these to be manufactured in Australia. Given probable time constraints, such an arrangement with Hanwha my be the quickest option for acquiring not only mobile VSHORAD, but MLRS.
Hmmmm.....there used to be a 40mm canister round once upon a time....for the M79 or M203.
| canister | ||
|---|---|---|
| M1001 HVCC, high-velocity canister cartridge[38] Canister shot containing several flechettes. Produces a 3 to 4 ft (0.91 to 1.2 m) wide dispersion pattern at 50 m (164
|
Last edited:
Will be interesting as to how effective the Boxers 30 mm cannon is against aerial threats.
I would imagine it will be quite effective out to a few km's against small slow moving targets.
As to fast moving platforms a VSHORD solution would seem to be a good fit.
Not sure if spike could be replaced with such a missile if needed.
An area to explore in the years ahead.
Cheers S
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Naval Weapons Systems | NAVAL | Defense | Hanwha Systems
Hanwha are also working on a new 30mm CIWS system for the ROKN, sooner or later the RAN are going to have to bite the bullet on a Phalanx replacement.
There's plenty of choice. Just a question of picking one.
So do LIG Nex1 with its 30mm CIWS II based on the GAU-8.
LIG Nex1 Likely To Seize ROKN CIWS-II Program - Naval News
LIG Nex1 has received the highest score in the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN)’s preliminary evaluation process for its close-in weapon system (CIWS)-II program, according to the Seoul Economic Daily. This makes it likely that LIG Nex1 will be designated as the preferred bidder for the program.
www.navalnews.com
is that your choice for the main gun on the Arafura Ngati?So do LIG Nex1 with its 30mm CIWS II based on the GAU-8.
LIG Nex1 Likely To Seize ROKN CIWS-II Program - Naval News
LIG Nex1 has received the highest score in the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN)’s preliminary evaluation process for its close-in weapon system (CIWS)-II program, according to the Seoul Economic Daily. This makes it likely that LIG Nex1 will be designated as the preferred bidder for the program.
Regards,
Massive
Nope, I am just suggesting is as a VSHORAD option, that's all.
Maybe you should use the trusty L1A1 SLR for the Arafuras
Over kill, a 9mm Browning will doNope, I am just suggesting is as a VSHORAD option, that's all.
Maybe you should use the trusty L1A1 SLR for the Arafuras
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Na, Cutlasses for the Arafura's, just in case they have to repel boarders, good enough for Tasmania's favourite son Errol Flynn, good enough for the RANNope, I am just suggesting is as a VSHORAD option, that's all.
Maybe you should use the trusty L1A1 SLR for the Arafuras
Well they do issue swords to pilots.