Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

The question that should be put to the minister (just putting into a bite size chunk what others have said in the forum) should be how do you raise, sustain, retain and train the force to be projected and once projected what do you reinforce or replace it with?

Yes numbers matter!

It somewhat seems indulgent saying we should have more IFV's when you consider that on current plans, Army will receive just over 500 heavy armoured vehicles with a weight over 35t.

Collectively not an insignificant capability.

However it is about balance and as mentioned sustainability.
Army of threes, fours, fives???

Current IFV numbers will realistically give you a deployable SQN level capability with a handful supporting MBTs and engineers.

Maybe fine for a short term situation, but beyond that, somewhat problematic.

I'm working on the assumption the other guy actually fires back at you!!!

Yes numbers matter!

Cheers S

 

[Stampede]

If the 3rd Brigade is to be the Army's mechanised brigade, then I think it would make sense if a second batch was ordered to also allow 1 RAR to be equipped with the AS21, rather than the Bushmasters they currently have. Would also be good if a second batch included the variants of the AS21 that appear to have been cancelled, eg a replacement for the M113 mortar carrier... but the following is from a transcript of an interview with Minister Marles on 7 November 2023 so I am not optimistic about more being ordered-

MARLES: We reduced infantry fighting vehicles from 450 down to [129]. We did that because there was no world in which Australia would be able to take 450 infantry fighting vehicles beyond our shores. And we have made really clear what our strategic intent here is. We need to be able to project. We were not going to be protecting with those infantry fighting vehicles. And so former generals can, you know, be sad about the fact that they can't drive those around Australia The fact of the matter is, we need a force which is able to project and we make no apologies for the decisions that we've made there. But we've also got new capabilities. We are properly funding long-range strike. We are standing up a long-range strike brigade for the first time, which we based in Adelaide, where our test ranges are, where our defence industry is. It's a really significant step forward in terms of the lethality and the potency of the Australian Army, and it comes from doing the strategic thinking. Now there are, as I say, difficult decisions, and when you make a difficult decision, you'll always find somebody who will make a complaint about it. But we are not afraid of that because the fact of the matter is, we have a decade of no decisions being made at all and Australia has faced a 10 year capability gap as a result of that.

Doorstop interview, Indo Pacific Sea Power Conference | Defence Ministers

 

[Volkodav]

The question is what can the aggressor get on the field? Even against China we will likely have overmatch of armour anywhere they are likely to deploy.

Look at armour deployed to the pacific in WW2. With the US and Australia is was about one tank regiment (US battalion) per nine infantry battalions, literally providing a troop/platoon of tanks per infantry battalion.

This remains the scale of armour for conventional, light and mobile infantry forces in most nations. A brigade of tanks supporty a corps of infantry, a regiment supporting a division, a squadron supporting a brigade (Australia's Vietnam Taskforce) etc.

Concentrated armour is an entirely different matter, and to be honest, not likely to be seen in our region. How would anyone get that number of tanks to Australia?

Don't get me wrong, I like armour, it saves the lives of the troops it supports, but too much armour creates an opportunity cost with impacts on other capabilities.

An armoured brigade with multiple deployable battle groups and even combat teams to support lighter more mobile forces is probably more than adequate.

An infantry battalion supported by a troop of tanks, a platoon or two of armoured infantry, CAV troop and an SPG troop (half a battery) and organic air defence, would be more than most aggressors could handle. Throw in Anti Ship Missile battery HIMARS and potentially Typhon (land based Mk41 derived mobile launchers for SM-6 and Tomahawk), who could successfully invade a small nation protected by propositioned Australian forces?

This is what we are talking about, an invader from outside the region annexing small island nations with the aim of strategically isolating Australia from the US, Japan, India etc. A nation from outside the region preventing Australia being used as a base of operations to drive them out of the Pacific and South East Asia.

Dare I say what we really probably need is something closer to the original Beersheba ACRs but in a brigade. Three ACRs with Tanks and IFVs, including assault troops, self propelled mortars and SPAA integrated at squadron level. SPGs and aviation at regiment level, but able to be deployed with the squadrons.

Once we have this capability stitched up, along with the RAAF and RAN components of it, we can look at reserve armour brigades etc. A mobilisation base of cadre brigades with equipment in storage to be stood up in times of conflict, but until then we need to look at being able to deal with the most likely senarios.

 

[Stampede]

The question is what can the aggressor get on the field? Even against China we will likely have overmatch of armour anywhere they are likely to deploy.

Look at armour deployed to the pacific in WW2. With the US and Australia is was about one tank regiment (US battalion) per nine infantry battalions, literally providing a troop/platoon of tanks per infantry battalion.

This remains the scale of armour for conventional, light and mobile infantry forces in most nations. A brigade of tanks supporty a corps of infantry, a regiment supporting a division, a squadron supporting a brigade (Australia's Vietnam Taskforce) etc.

Concentrated armour is an entirely different matter, and to be honest, not likely to be seen in our region. How would anyone get that number of tanks to Australia?

Don't get me wrong, I like armour, it saves the lives of the troops it supports, but too much armour creates an opportunity cost with impacts on other capabilities.

An armoured brigade with multiple deployable battle groups and even combat teams to support lighter more mobile forces is probably more than adequate.

An infantry battalion supported by a troop of tanks, a platoon or two of armoured infantry, CAV troop and an SPG troop (half a battery) and organic air defence, would be more than most aggressors could handle. Throw in Anti Ship Missile battery HIMARS and potentially Typhon (land based Mk41 derived mobile launchers for SM-6 and Tomahawk), who could successfully invade a small nation protected by propositioned Australian forces?

This is what we are talking about, an invader from outside the region annexing small island nations with the aim of strategically isolating Australia from the US, Japan, India etc. A nation from outside the region preventing Australia being used as a base of operations to drive them out of the Pacific and South East Asia.

Dare I say what we really probably need is something closer to the original Beersheba ACRs but in a brigade. Three ACRs with Tanks and IFVs, including assault troops, self propelled mortars and SPAA integrated at squadron level. SPGs and aviation at regiment level, but able to be deployed with the squadrons.

Once we have this capability stitched up, along with the RAAF and RAN components of it, we can look at reserve armour brigades etc. A mobilisation base of cadre brigades with equipment in storage to be stood up in times of conflict, but until then we need to look at being able to deal with the most likely senarios.

Hi Volk

Are you suggesting we go back to mult Role combat Brigades as in Plan Beersheba/ Keogh.?


Cheers S

 

[aussienscale]

With the Army due to start receiving their new M1A2 tanks this year, I hope there is a plan to donate at least some of the old M1A1 tanks to Ukraine.

The deal under Land 907 Phase 2 has us getting our 75 out of current US stocks and modernised before delivery, the current fleet will remain in service until we receive our upgraded hulls and then returned to US stocks.

US approves Australian M1 Abrams upgrade package | ADBR

The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has announced State Department approval for Australia to acquire a comprehensive upgrade package for its M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks valued at an…

adbr.com.au

Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

Hi Volk

Are you suggesting we go back to mult Role combat Brigades as in Plan Beersheba/ Keogh.?


Cheers S

No, I'm suggesting that one ACR under plan Beersheba, combining tanks, cav, ifvs etc. be added to each brigade but rather that a full CAV brigade with three identical ACRs could be a good model.

They could even take it further and have three identical squadrons in each regiment or nine identical squadrons in the brigade. That's your raise, train, sustain.

 

[Stampede]

No, I'm suggesting that one ACR under plan Beersheba, combining tanks, cav, ifvs etc. be added to each brigade but rather that a full CAV brigade with three identical ACRs could be a good model.

They could even take it further and have three identical squadrons in each regiment or nine identical squadrons in the brigade. That's your raise, train, sustain.

It will be interesting as to what all three Brigades look like.

The ACR in past had one Tank and two Cav Sqn's.

Current thinking is 3rd Brigade in Townsville will be Heavy and the 7th Brigade in Brisbane will be Motorized.
I guess both will get Boxers for the Cav Sqn's

As for the 1st Brigade in Darwin it will be "light"............what does that look like.
Do they get Boxers or do they even get a Cav Regt . Others could advise.
Will relinked 5/7RAR be motorized, or are we back to the 1980's sort of light infantry?

If as I suspect, 3 and 7 Brigades each get 3 Sqns of Boxers, what does the composition look like in the Heavy Brigade?

Three like Regts, each with a Sqn of MBT / Cav and IFV , or alternatively a Regt of each capability. I'm guessing the later.

Not sure what I prefer .
Actually I do.
It's an Army of fours.

Cheers S

 

[old faithful]

The way Army is being managed, it won't really matter how the brigades are set up, because they will change again, nothing surer.
There is nothing worse than constant re rolling, makes keeping a high standard in any discipline almost impossible.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

No, I'm suggesting that one ACR under plan Beersheba, combining tanks, cav, ifvs etc. be added to each brigade but rather that a full CAV brigade with three identical ACRs could be a good model.

They could even take it further and have three identical squadrons in each regiment or nine identical squadrons in the brigade. That's your raise, train, sustain.

The ACR were not to have IFVs, and the cavalry squadrons don't even have full-time assault troopers (not sure if they've updated the nomenclature there, but the guys who ride in the back - what the US Army would call scouts), so you'd be rather short of infantry.

I've had others suggest on here that permanent mixed formations - battlegroups effectively - is not the way to do things; that disparate but complimentary units and sub-units come together when needed. Not sure I entirely agree since the US Army has done it for years with its own Armored Cavalry Regiments.

Anyway, that aside, with planned acquisitions, we could - in theory - do as you suggest with a brigade fielding three ACRs, each with three squadrons, each with a tank troop, a Boxer troop, and an IFV troop/platoon.

If 3rd Brigade ends up with full armoured and cavalry regiments (three squadrons of tanks and three of Boxers), and an armoured infantry battalion with the IFV, then it would basically be able to form the same teams / battlegroups.

Of course, either way, this means 3rd Brigade could deploy a combat team indefinitely, or sustain a deployed battlegroup, but it's not really set up to deploy as a brigade in our region with its own constituent units. Realistically though, there are few scenarios in which we would want to deploy an armoured brigade in our region, or could, given the logistical challenges.

We know 3rd Brigade will be the only operator of tanks, but that 1st Armoured Regiment is staying in South Australia as a trials unit. So will a new RAAC unit be formed as, effectively, a tank regiment, and will it field three squadrons? Will 2nd Cavalry Regiment gain an additional squadron of Boxers? Will 2nd/14th Light Horse likewise gain a third squadron of Boxers? Will 3rd Brigade have just one RAR battalion as armoured infantry with the IFV? These are all questions I've asked before, and really it seems we just have to wait and see what the structure will look like.

My fear is the RAAC gets cut and we see fewer Abrams and Boxer squadrons being fielded, but time will tell.

 

[old faithful]

An ifv infantry section is 8-10 men. 1 car.
3 sections per PL + phq =4 cars.
3 PL per Company =12 cars.
CHQ needs 2 Cars. CQMS Could use bushmaster variants.
Total needed 14 IFVs per company.
3 companies would need 42 IFVs.
Supporting vehicles include SPGs
M1s, recovery and other support tanks, Cavs Boxers and bushmasters/hawkis. Surely we could field 2 units like this or similar?

 

[Stampede]

An ifv infantry section is 8-10 men. 1 car.
3 sections per PL + phq =4 cars.
3 PL per Company =12 cars.
CHQ needs 2 Cars. CQMS Could use bushmaster variants.
Total needed 14 IFVs per company.
3 companies would need 42 IFVs.
Supporting vehicles include SPGs
M1s, recovery and other support tanks, Cavs Boxers and bushmasters/hawkis. Surely we could field 2 units like this or similar?

My understanding / observation is about a third of a vehicles fleet is for long term maintence, refit , training, spares and attrition.
Out of 129 IFV's that would give you around 86 for the regimental units.

Working on the basis of threes, that's about 28 for deployment.
Tank and engineering Sqns will take a few each, so my guess is around 18 to 20 available for a mechanised Sqn.

My guess unfortunately, enough for one not two IFV Sqns for sustainable deployment.
As I said previously, I'd prefer an Army of fours.
Therefore an overall increase in numbers.
of at least another 43 cars!

Others could advise as to the math and I'm open to correction.

Cheers S

 

[Anthony_B_78]

An ifv infantry section is 8-10 men. 1 car.
3 sections per PL + phq =4 cars.
3 PL per Company =12 cars.
CHQ needs 2 Cars. CQMS Could use bushmaster variants.
Total needed 14 IFVs per company.
3 companies would need 42 IFVs.
Supporting vehicles include SPGs
M1s, recovery and other support tanks, Cavs Boxers and bushmasters/hawkis. Surely we could field 2 units like this or similar?

I would have thought so too, but then 450 was supposed to be sufficient for three battalions, plus training, maintenance, attrition. And more knowledgeable people - such as Raven - have, IIRC, explained how and why you need more that base number. You need some for your support company, you need recovery and maintenance variants, you need some even for your artillery regiment. I don't think there's even a breakdown yet of the variants and numbers of our Redback order?

 

[Volkodav]

The ACR were not to have IFVs, and the cavalry squadrons don't even have full-time assault troopers (not sure if they've updated the nomenclature there, but the guys who ride in the back - what the US Army would call scouts), so you'd be rather short of infantry.

I've had others suggest on here that permanent mixed formations - battlegroups effectively - is not the way to do things; that disparate but complimentary units and sub-units come together when needed. Not sure I entirely agree since the US Army has done it for years with its own Armored Cavalry Regiments.

Anyway, that aside, with planned acquisitions, we could - in theory - do as you suggest with a brigade fielding three ACRs, each with three squadrons, each with a tank troop, a Boxer troop, and an IFV troop/platoon.

If 3rd Brigade ends up with full armoured and cavalry regiments (three squadrons of tanks and three of Boxers), and an armoured infantry battalion with the IFV, then it would basically be able to form the same teams / battlegroups.

Of course, either way, this means 3rd Brigade could deploy a combat team indefinitely, or sustain a deployed battlegroup, but it's not really set up to deploy as a brigade in our region with its own constituent units. Realistically though, there are few scenarios in which we would want to deploy an armoured brigade in our region, or could, given the logistical challenges.

We know 3rd Brigade will be the only operator of tanks, but that 1st Armoured Regiment is staying in South Australia as a trials unit. So will a new RAAC unit be formed as, effectively, a tank regiment, and will it field three squadrons? Will 2nd Cavalry Regiment gain an additional squadron of Boxers? Will 2nd/14th Light Horse likewise gain a third squadron of Boxers? Will 3rd Brigade have just one RAR battalion as armoured infantry with the IFV? These are all questions I've asked before, and really it seems we just have to wait and see what the structure will look like.

My fear is the RAAC gets cut and we see fewer Abrams and Boxer squadrons being fielded, but time will tell.

The original Beersheba brigade was to have had one sqn each of tanks, cav and ifv, but this was later changed.

Cav used to have assault troopers but again this changed.

I'm just speculating on what could be done.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

The original Beersheba brigade was to have had one sqn each of tanks, cav and ifv, but this was later changed.

Cav used to have assault troopers but again this changed.

I'm just speculating on what could be done.

And you're absolutely right - if we still field the equivalent of three squadrons of tanks, for a start.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Further to this, the other possibility that goes to Volkodav's thinking that I mused about a while ago would be if there will be sufficient Redbacks for four - rather than three - armoured infantry companies.

If so, you could have two "battalions" - each with a tank squadron and two armoured infantry companies in the Redback. The cavalry regiment could focus on what it does, while you have two armoured battlegroups to close with and destroy the enemy.

You could sustain a deployment of a battlegroup consisting of a cavalry squadron and two armoured teams - each with a tank troop and two armoured infantry platoons. That is, 8-10 Abrams, say 20 Redbacks, and a similar number, maybe slightly more, of Boxers.

 

[Takao]

It somewhat seems indulgent saying we should have more IFV's when you consider that on current plans, Army will receive just over 500 heavy armoured vehicles with a weight over 35t.

That's extremely simplistic thinking. Mass =/= role. You have to consider roles, training, maintenance, losses, a whole bunch of stuff...

For the last discussion about numbers, you really need to go look at doctrine and build from there. Doctrinally, and arguably historically, speaking, the Australian Army requires about 1000 IFVs to do the job. That is, to put a Bde in the field for an extended period (ie, 12 - 18 months+, not a bullshit 6 week Hamel). Coincidently, I've done the numbers for IFV here (1040 please) and tank here (130 please).

Yes, minimal viable capability is the new catch cry. Yes, we can get away without wartime numbers if we have a solid and rehearsed mobilisation plan. I am not suggesting that the order needs to go from 159 to 1040 tomorrow - I know what the budget is like and I'm also away of the other bits of FIC needed. But, you need to grasp what is needed before you can have intelligent discussions about what to cut. The need for Army to do the missions provided is big.

Concentrated armour is an entirely different matter, and to be honest, not likely to be seen in our region. How would anyone get that number of tanks to Australia?

Don't confuse our region with Australia. Straight up, there is no risk of an invasion of the Australian mainland. And even if the Alien Space Bats come and help get a lodgement ashore, it's going to die. Between the terrain, Collins and air, the only thing the Army will need to do is mortuary and PW affairs. Small elements of SF and the like doing raids is different, but that's not an invasion.

To think we won't have to fight elsewhere in the region though - that's wrong. And to think that concentrated armour in our region isn't a thing - Vietnam, India and China would all historically disagree. Plus, in the initial stages of any operation, better to throw overwhelming strength in to undermine enemy morale from day 1. There was no need for ASLAV or M113 in Timor Leste in 1999 - but they helped make a statement. Furthermore, look at what the threats are pushing down to sub-unit and below. Our foes don't just have grenades, machine guns and rifles now - there are heavier weapons, pretty god rockets/missiles - a whole bunch of stuff that makes light infantry more and more irrelevant. Noting how hard armour is to make and train (compared to the rest of ground Army, better to start with high stocks and train up light infantry than the other way around.

An infantry battalion supported by a troop of tanks, a platoon or two of armoured infantry, CAV troop and an SPG troop (half a battery) and organic air defence, would be more than most aggressors could handle. Throw in Anti Ship Missile battery HIMARS and potentially Typhon (land based Mk41 derived mobile launchers for SM-6 and Tomahawk), who could successfully invade a small nation protected by propositioned Australian forces?

Depending where it is? Vietnam, China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Singapore. Possibly the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand. Yup, some are our allies. But in the grand scheme of things, a Battlegroup is reasonably easy pickings. It is why our unit of action is a Bde. That BG has no depth, no resilience and, after 14 days, will probably have no logistics.

I've had others suggest on here that permanent mixed formations - battlegroups effectively - is not the way to do things; that disparate but complimentary units and sub-units come together when needed. Not sure I entirely agree since the US Army has done it for years with its own Armored Cavalry Regiments.

A US Army ACR is actually roughly equal to one of our Bde.

(from FM 34-35 Chptr 2 Organization)

Note there are three Cav units (each with a SPH Bty, meaning there is a Arty unit in total), there is a attack/recon helicopter unit and there is a logistics unit. In our parlance, that's 1 AR, 2 Cav, 2/14 LHR, 1 Regt, 1 Avn and 1 CSSB. Yes, our Bde has a CER as opposed to an engineer sub-unit, but for all intents and purposes a US Army ACR = an Australian Army Bde.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

A US Army ACR is actually roughly equal to one of our Bde.

Roughly, true. It has many more tanks than we have, and obviously IFVs, which we don't yet have, and it has a different role - being built to operate as a screening force, fighting for reconnaissance, advance guard, and so forth. But, in size, yes, it's a brigade.

My point was about how it is constituted as permanent mixed units with tanks, armoured infantry, and so forth. I could imagine a lot of hostility to mixed corps units in an Australian context.

 

[Takao]

Roughly, true. It has many more tanks than we have, and obviously IFVs, which we don't yet have, and it has a different role - being built to operate as a screening force, fighting for reconnaissance, advance guard, and so forth. But, in size, yes, it's a brigade.

My point was about how it is constituted as permanent mixed units with tanks, armoured infantry, and so forth. I could imagine a lot of hostility to mixed corps units in an Australian context.

We have tried permanent combined arms units in the past and it doesn't work, you get neither fish nor fowl. In settling on single Corps units, we can generate deep subject matter knowledge.

The key is ensuring those units can get familiar with each other to build the combined arms knowledge. That's where the Bde comes in. A Gunner in 1 Regt gets to regularly train and learn with RAAC (2/14 LHR), RASigs (7 CSR), loggies (7 CSSB), RAE (2 CER), and RAInf (6 RAR and 8/9 RAR). That's were the Beersheba Bde's were so powerful, all Corps mixed with all Corps and it was easy to get experience from Pl up to unit.

So we achieve combined arms familiarity and knowledge through the Bde structure - just as you advocate duplicating a US Army ACR.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

We have tried permanent combined arms units in the past and it doesn't work, you get neither fish nor fowl. In settling on single Corps units, we can generate deep subject matter knowledge.

The key is ensuring those units can get familiar with each other to build the combined arms knowledge. That's where the Bde comes in. A Gunner in 1 Regt gets to regularly train and learn with RAAC (2/14 LHR), RASigs (7 CSR), loggies (7 CSSB), RAE (2 CER), and RAInf (6 RAR and 8/9 RAR). That's were the Beersheba Bde's were so powerful, all Corps mixed with all Corps and it was easy to get experience from Pl up to unit.

So we achieve combined arms familiarity and knowledge through the Bde structure - just as you advocate duplicating a US Army ACR.

Out of interest, where and how have we tried it in the past? I'd be interested in reading about those experiences. Are you referring to the Pentropic organisation or something more recent?

I understand the argument, and it is a compelling one.

I'm not advocating duplicating the US Army ACR; that would not be suitable for us. I'm questioning what structures we will/should end up with given the changes announced last year, particularly around how 3rd Brigade will be armoured with all the tanks but only one RAAC unit, at this stage.

 

[Stampede]

That's extremely simplistic thinking. Mass =/= role. You have to consider roles, training, maintenance, losses, a whole bunch of stuff...

For the last discussion about numbers, you really need to go look at doctrine and build from there. Doctrinally, and arguably historically, speaking, the Australian Army requires about 1000 IFVs to do the job. That is, to put a Bde in the field for an extended period (ie, 12 - 18 months+, not a bullshit 6 week Hamel). Coincidently, I've done the numbers for IFV here (1040 please) and tank here (130 please).

Yes, minimal viable capability is the new catch cry. Yes, we can get away without wartime numbers if we have a solid and rehearsed mobilisation plan. I am not suggesting that the order needs to go from 159 to 1040 tomorrow - I know what the budget is like and I'm also away of the other bits of FIC needed. But, you need to grasp what is needed before you can have intelligent discussions about what to cut. The need for Army to do the missions provided is big.



Don't confuse our region with Australia. Straight up, there is no risk of an invasion of the Australian mainland. And even if the Alien Space Bats come and help get a lodgement ashore, it's going to die. Between the terrain, Collins and air, the only thing the Army will need to do is mortuary and PW affairs. Small elements of SF and the like doing raids is different, but that's not an invasion.

To think we won't have to fight elsewhere in the region though - that's wrong. And to think that concentrated armour in our region isn't a thing - Vietnam, India and China would all historically disagree. Plus, in the initial stages of any operation, better to throw overwhelming strength in to undermine enemy morale from day 1. There was no need for ASLAV or M113 in Timor Leste in 1999 - but they helped make a statement. Furthermore, look at what the threats are pushing down to sub-unit and below. Our foes don't just have grenades, machine guns and rifles now - there are heavier weapons, pretty god rockets/missiles - a whole bunch of stuff that makes light infantry more and more irrelevant. Noting how hard armour is to make and train (compared to the rest of ground Army, better to start with high stocks and train up light infantry than the other way around.



Depending where it is? Vietnam, China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Singapore. Possibly the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand. Yup, some are our allies. But in the grand scheme of things, a Battlegroup is reasonably easy pickings. It is why our unit of action is a Bde. That BG has no depth, no resilience and, after 14 days, will probably have no logistics.



A US Army ACR is actually roughly equal to one of our Bde.

(from FM 34-35 Chptr 2 Organization)

Note there are three Cav units (each with a SPH Bty, meaning there is a Arty unit in total), there is a attack/recon helicopter unit and there is a logistics unit. In our parlance, that's 1 AR, 2 Cav, 2/14 LHR, 1 Regt, 1 Avn and 1 CSSB. Yes, our Bde has a CER as opposed to an engineer sub-unit, but for all intents and purposes a US Army ACR = an Australian Army Bde.

Hi Takao

Thanks for the math.
I do recall your commentary and numbers from days gone bye.

Probably not in agreement with the simplest thinking comment! Having a thin skin day!

I have not actually stated my Army fantasy fleet , but whatever that looks like , it will be based on the hard reality of budget.

For good or bad.
Defence Budget = Mass =/= role.

Your 1040 IFV would probably look minimal in a major hot war scenario.
I can get such a need in such a scenario, as I can also envisage the expansion of other capabilities across Army and the other two services.
That's a very big ADF.

Desirable but unachievable without a significant amount of coin for equipment, personnel and training.

At the moment we know the vehicles and numbers we have and the new ones we are acquiring.

In the public forum there is alot we don't know as re how these vehicles will be grouped and allocated within the new brigade structure.

Do I have reservations re what we have and should have.
For sure.
Army needs more coin!

Like it or not, unfortunately budget trumps need!


Cheers S