Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

129 IFVs
Around two thirds will be active
Say about 86

Take away those for engineers and tank Sqns and you’re left with how many?

I don’t know the answer but it will say a lot about total Squdron numbers and Armys heavy capability.

I’m guessing in the future the Redback order will grow.

Cheers S

 

[Reptilia]

129 IFVs
Around two thirds will be active
Say about 86

Take away those for engineers and tank Sqns and you’re left with how many?

I don’t know the answer but it will say a lot about total Squdron numbers and Armys heavy capability.

I’m guessing in the future the Redback order will grow.

Cheers S

SPH order should grow too. >Future unmanned K9A3s.
Maybe controlled by the 5 crew AS9s(with armour upgrades) but converted to C&C?

 

[Anthony_B_78]

The news regarding 2nd Cavalry fielding two cavalry and two tank squadrons (with field strengths of 18 tanks for each of the latter) is welcome, and a little surprising. I said a while ago I worried that the reorganisation would see very few of the new Abrams actually in service. So good to see I was wrong about that. The other reason I am surprised is that the ADF seems to have a habit of having understrength units rather than larger ones. In this case, 2nd Cavalry will end up as the most powerful armoured regiment in our region.

I would hope that 3RAR will have four rifle companies with the introduction of the Redback. That would enable 3rd Brigade to field two identical armoured battle groups, each with a cavalry squadron, a tank squadron, and two mech infantry companies. Or, more suited to the littoral environment perhaps, combat teams of varying combinations could be fielded. All supported by SP howitzers and armoured engineers.

In terms of how likely this is, what I can't seem to find is a variant breakdown for our Redback order. That's rather important. If the 129 on order are all turreted IFVs, then there should be plenty for 3RAR to field four companies. That's assuming 14 per company, plus several more at battalion HQ. But if the 129 includes command, repair and recovery variants, and so forth, then it may not be likely.

 

[ADMk2]

I agree that they probably won’t do it (especially if that battalion also incorporates engineering elements as the ADM article quoted by photographer suggests, thanks photographer) but can you explain why it would it be silly, please?

The structure might call for 4 rifle companies, but the manning allocated likely won’t…

 

[ADMk2]

From the ANZ Defender article.
Modern Anzacs: Defence News

"Under the new Order of Battle, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment will field approximately 36 M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams (two MBT squadrons each fielding 18 M1A2s) and six to 12 M88A2 HERCULES heavy recovery vehicles and approximately 40 Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles. "

"The 3rd Brigade's artillery regiment, the Lavarack Barracks based 4th Field Regiment will convert from its inservice fleet of 155mm/39 calibre M777A2 Lightweight Towed Howitzers (LTH) to the new armoured 155mm/52 calibre Huntsman Self Propelled Artillery System composed of AS9 Huntsman Self Propelled Artillery and AS10 Armoured Artillery Resupply Vehicles (AARV). "

"A single mechanised infantry battalion, the Lavarack Barracks' based 3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment (3RAR), will fight with the armoured spearhead and heavy combat engineering elements re equipping from the inservice M113AS4 Armoured Personnel Carrier to the next generation AS21 Redback Infantry Fighting Vehicle from 2027. "

Hope this post doesnt break any site rules. Mods?

Good to see “he” updated his earlier, incorrect number of tanks per squadron…

 

[Anthony_B_78]

The structure might call for 4 rifle companies, but the manning allocated likely won’t…

Maybe, maybe not. It's only about 100 or so. I wouldn't have thought 2nd Cavalry would get two tank squadrons, each with 18 tanks.

 

[ADMk2]

Maybe, maybe not. It's only about 100 or so. I wouldn't have thought 2nd Cavalry would get two tank squadrons, each with 18 tanks.

Historically speaking, most of our battalions are under-strength in reality as opposed to the intended manning cap. Hence my skepticism…

 

[Stampede]

The structure might call for 4 rifle companies, but the manning allocated likely won’t…

Ok
How many APCs in a Beersheba mechanised company

Going forward

How many IFVs in a mechanised company / Sqn?

Cheers S

 

[Milo]

In terms of how likely this is, what I can't seem to find is a variant breakdown for our Redback order. That's rather important. If the 129 on order are all turreted IFVs, then there should be plenty for 3RAR to field four companies. That's assuming 14 per company, plus several more at battalion HQ. But if the 129 includes command, repair and recovery variants, and so forth, then it may not be likely.

I remember reading that when the order was cut to 129 vehicles, the number of variants was also cut to two. The only variants being ordered are the IFV and the joint fires vehicle. The only difference between the two is that different radios are fitted to the joint fires vehicle.

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

Deputy Chief of Army has a recent paper in ASPI. The implications of emerging changes in land warfare for the focused all-domain defence force | Australian Strategic Policy Institute | ASPI One of the chapters deals with the myth of a light force and why we need a heavy force, and the proceeding chapter on the role of visible deterrence. With existing or planned kit, Australia could field three battle groups (of a Cav squadron, an Armour Squadron and at least two companies of mechanized infantry, combat engineering and SPHs). Yes, we lack sufficient mechanized infantry and IFVs but we can substitute Bushmaster or M113AS4 companies (from 3rd Battalion, 7th Brigade or Army Reserve as appropriate) or have a hollow third battle group for padding out with Infantry when needed.

 

[Takao]

Ok
How many APCs in a Beersheba mechanised company

Going forward

How many IFVs in a mechanised company / Sqn?

Cheers S

IFVs are hard. It's 16 gun cars to a line Coy, with 5 - 7 extra versions. Support Coy are different, and then there are all the other roles they slot in for Arty, Cav, Armd and Engr units.

I did a how many IFVs are needed post 18 months ago - I haven't looked closely but I don't think this doctrine has been touched in that time. A Bde worked out to be 342x gun cars and 245x (40x EME, 25x ambo, 15x mor, 135x log, and 30x eng) variants.

 

[Stampede]

IFVs are hard. It's 16 gun cars to a line Coy, with 5 - 7 extra versions. Support Coy are different, and then there are all the other roles they slot in for Arty, Cav, Armd and Engr units.

I did a how many IFVs are needed post 18 months ago - I haven't looked closely but I don't think this doctrine has been touched in that time. A Bde worked out to be 342x gun cars and 245x (40x EME, 25x ambo, 15x mor, 135x log, and 30x eng) variants.

Thanks Takao

The old APC came in lot of varieties which performed a variety of roles

I’d speculate the new mechanised IFV company’s will have a very different structure and vehicle compliment to years gone bye

With the small number of 129 vehicles it would be optimistic to expect much in the way of Squadron numbers

Let’s see what the new year brings

Cheers S

 

[seaspear]

With regards to the makeup of mechanised companies the introduction of boxers in various forms including the rch155 remote controlled howitzer is it fair to suggest that these will be taking on roles that may have in the past been the role of the tank exclusively

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

IFVs are hard. It's 16 gun cars to a line Coy, with 5 - 7 extra versions. Support Coy are different, and then there are all the other roles they slot in for Arty, Cav, Armd and Engr units.

I did a how many IFVs are needed post 18 months ago - I haven't looked closely but I don't think this doctrine has been touched in that time. A Bde worked out to be 342x gun cars and 245x (40x EME, 25x ambo, 15x mor, 135x log, and 30x eng) variants.

To what extent can existing assets (M113AS4, Bushmaster, ASLAV, Hawkei) be used? Are the existing vehicles providing such capability too clapped out and in need of replacement?

The First Armoured regiment could also be a massive force multiplier - they are becoming an experimental unit, with the role of trialling new technologies (I assume in conjunction with RICO and the other bodies currently doing the work):

Crew free operation (which possibly reduce the number of personnel required to operate them and definitely do so more safely) -​

• the Huntsmen SPH will probably soon have crew free vehicles;
• Army has tested crew free Trucks Army's autonomous truck convoy a first | Defence;
• the M113A4 already has about 20 crew free vehicles Australian Army testing autonomous M113AS4s, upgraded by BAE Systems look at this Australian Army trials UGV live firing with EOS - Asian Military Review ;
• RSF Pilbara Regiment trialling a UGV UGVs deployed by ADF for border protection - Army Technology;
• we don't as yet have a crew free Abrahms;
• BAE have unveiled their Autonomous Tactical Light Armour System (ATLASTM) Collaborative Combat Variant (CCV), a new, cost effective, modular, 8x8 UGV, has been designed and built leveraging BAE Systems’ world-leading expertise in autonomous technology, armoured vehicles and in collaboration with industry partners. This would reduce the number of IFVs required.

Better and more drone and anti-drone capabilities. And yes, I know, the above could be called drones as well. Some Russo-Ukrainian War videos are quite disconcerting to the PBI or the PBtankers.​

​

Lasers and other interesting technologies which appear to be gaining traction. (not really getting carried away here, The Army Has Officially Deployed Laser Weapons Overseas to Combat Enemy Drones | Military.com British Army successfully tests new drone-destroying laser - GOV.UK )​

 

[Stampede]

IFVs are hard. It's 16 gun cars to a line Coy, with 5 - 7 extra versions. Support Coy are different, and then there are all the other roles they slot in for Arty, Cav, Armd and Engr units.

I did a how many IFVs are needed post 18 months ago - I haven't looked closely but I don't think this doctrine has been touched in that time. A Bde worked out to be 342x gun cars and 245x (40x EME, 25x ambo, 15x mor, 135x log, and 30x eng) variants.

Out of curiosity what is the EME variant?

Cheers S

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Out of curiosity what is the EME variant?

Cheers S

That would be a reference to electrical and mechanical engineers. That's a fairly safe assumption I'm making based on the letters and the number cited. Depending on the vehicle, the manufacturer and the purchaser, you might have several variants that would fit under that category. For the British Army's Warrior, for example, you have the FV512 Mechanised Combat Repair Vehicle and the FV513 Mechanised Recovery Vehicle (Repair) - both operated by REME detachments. As we've been saying, it's not yet clear what variants of the Redback the Australian Army will be receiving beyond the IFV in its basic form ("gun cars" to use that term).

 

[Anthony_B_78]

IFVs are hard. It's 16 gun cars to a line Coy, with 5 - 7 extra versions. Support Coy are different, and then there are all the other roles they slot in for Arty, Cav, Armd and Engr units.

I did a how many IFVs are needed post 18 months ago - I haven't looked closely but I don't think this doctrine has been touched in that time. A Bde worked out to be 342x gun cars and 245x (40x EME, 25x ambo, 15x mor, 135x log, and 30x eng) variants.

Dare I say established doctrine is largely irrelevant here as this is new to the Australian Army. A battalion with IFVs is very different than one with APCs. It will not merely be a mechanised infantry battalion, but an armoured infantry one. That's fairly obvious.

As such, I'd suggest we look more to what our major allies have long used in their structures. Both the US and British armies have 14 IFVs to a rifle company - four to a platoon, and two in company HQ.

It gets more difficult to count numbers going beyond that because you have some in your HQ and support companies, and in other units (such as artillery and combat engineers), though most of these are going to be of your non-"gun car" variants.

But a US Army Armored Brigade Combat Team is said to have 152 Bradleys (this may not include the non-gun variants), while the British Army has 625 Warriors of all variants in service (though this is being reduced to 540) and, from what I can see, fields five armoured infantry battalions battalions.

To put it all into context, I don't think it's a stretch to believe we should be able to field a four-company battalion with our 129 Redbacks, allowing for training, maintenance, etc. The issue, as discussed earlier, will come down to manning and the Army's priorities, but it would make sense.

 

[Takao]

The old APC came in lot of varieties which performed a variety of roles

To what extent can existing assets (M113AS4, Bushmaster, ASLAV, Hawkei) be used? Are the existing vehicles providing such capability too clapped out and in need of replacement?

Yup. And the decision to cut the extra variants from the initial AS21 order means that the M113 versions will have to do the job. Which is a problem, because logistic vehicles providing intimate support for ground units require commensurate protection and mobility as the force they are supporting. So a log unit or a sig unit can have an M113 or Boxer or even Bushmaster (think ambulance that lifts from the Log Bn to the airport for strategic AME) - an infantry or armour unit can't. Well, it can, but it will be limited. And a smart enemy will know and leverage those disparities

The First Armoured regiment could also be a massive force multiplier - they are becoming an experimental unit, with the role of trialling new technologies (I assume in conjunction with RICO and the other bodies currently doing the work)

That's an extraordinarily generous interpretation of that particular decision....

Crew free operation (which possibly reduce the number of personnel required to operate them and definitely do so more safely) -​

Absolutely correct. However, that cuts down on ambulance variants and increases the need for EME ones. So I'd expect little to know change in platform needs. The increase is because while a crew could unbreak/unbog the platform, now you need to send a detachment forward to do it. And you still have all the bodies in the assault force. As.....contriversal...as my opinions on RAInf structure may be, they are still an absolutely critical part of the combined arms team, and you cannot seize and hold ground with robots. I doubt you'll be able to in the next two decades. Especially when there is a civilian population on said ground.

Out of curiosity what is the EME variant?

Sorry - the maintenance variants. EME = Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. Specifically a fitters variant and a recovery variant.


M113 Fitters track in Vietnam from Jerzy Krzemiński


Back of ASLAV-Recovery (from Anzac Steel). The back shows how this isn't 'just a' gun car or PC variant, but requires significant structure to take the recovery loads.


And the ASLAV Fitters variant (from Anzac Steel again)

You can see how forces need commiserate logistics support. If an AS21 gets itself stuck, do we really think a Boxer is going to be able to get there to help?

Dare I say established doctrine is largely irrelevant here as this is new to the Australian Army. A battalion with IFVs is very different than one with APCs. It will not merely be a mechanised infantry battalion, but an armoured infantry one. That's fairly obvious.

Nope. This is IFV doctrine. APC doctrine has different numbers. And the Australian Army has been working on IFV doctrine since LAND 400-3 approval. In the last couple of years, the Schools of Armour and Infantry have been rehearsing, developing and building it with Doctrine Wing and the Land Combat College. Is it right? Probably not - it's doctrine. It's meant to be upgradable. But is it pretty close? Yup. These are the literal experts building how they will use the AS21 to fight.

As I said in the original post and above, some positions will be able to be filled by M113s, Boxers and PMVs. You may not need a fleet of 800. But with 129, there are going to be some really clear and exploitable weaknesses.

To put it all into context, I don't think it's a stretch to believe we should be able to field a four-company battalion with our 129 Redbacks, allowing for training, maintenance, etc. The issue, as discussed earlier, will come down to manning and the Army's priorities, but it would make sense.

To put on a parade ground? Sure. Easy.

To fight? Not a chance. And that's only 2 BG (-) of combat power + 1 Cav BG. in the Bde - when a doctrinal Bde should have 3 - 4 combat focused BG + a Cav BG. You'll have no reinforcement either.

 

[Todjaeger]

To fight? Not a chance. And that's only 2 BG (-) of combat power + 1 Cav BG. in the Bde - when a doctrinal Bde should have 3 - 4 combat focused BG + a Cav BG. You'll have no reinforcement either.

But but but... they will not need to fight, because Australia will be defended by an impenetrable wall of land-based missile batteries covering air defence, anti-shipping and strike roles...

 

[Stampede]

Yup. And the decision to cut the extra variants from the initial AS21 order means that the M113 versions will have to do the job. Which is a problem, because logistic vehicles providing intimate support for ground units require commensurate protection and mobility as the force they are supporting. So a log unit or a sig unit can have an M113 or Boxer or even Bushmaster (think ambulance that lifts from the Log Bn to the airport for strategic AME) - an infantry or armour unit can't. Well, it can, but it will be limited. And a smart enemy will know and leverage those disparities



That's an extraordinarily generous interpretation of that particular decision....



Absolutely correct. However, that cuts down on ambulance variants and increases the need for EME ones. So I'd expect little to know change in platform needs. The increase is because while a crew could unbreak/unbog the platform, now you need to send a detachment forward to do it. And you still have all the bodies in the assault force. As.....contriversal...as my opinions on RAInf structure may be, they are still an absolutely critical part of the combined arms team, and you cannot seize and hold ground with robots. I doubt you'll be able to in the next two decades. Especially when there is a civilian population on said ground.



Sorry - the maintenance variants. EME = Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. Specifically a fitters variant and a recovery variant.

View attachment 52152
M113 Fitters track in Vietnam from Jerzy Krzemiński

View attachment 52153
Back of ASLAV-Recovery (from Anzac Steel). The back shows how this isn't 'just a' gun car or PC variant, but requires significant structure to take the recovery loads.

View attachment 52154
And the ASLAV Fitters variant (from Anzac Steel again)

You can see how forces need commiserate logistics support. If an AS21 gets itself stuck, do we really think a Boxer is going to be able to get there to help?



Nope. This is IFV doctrine. APC doctrine has different numbers. And the Australian Army has been working on IFV doctrine since LAND 400-3 approval. In the last couple of years, the Schools of Armour and Infantry have been rehearsing, developing and building it with Doctrine Wing and the Land Combat College. Is it right? Probably not - it's doctrine. It's meant to be upgradable. But is it pretty close? Yup. These are the literal experts building how they will use the AS21 to fight.

As I said in the original post and above, some positions will be able to be filled by M113s, Boxers and PMVs. You may not need a fleet of 800. But with 129, there are going to be some really clear and exploitable weaknesses.



To put on a parade ground? Sure. Easy.

To fight? Not a chance. And that's only 2 BG (-) of combat power + 1 Cav BG. in the Bde - when a doctrinal Bde should have 3 - 4 combat focused BG + a Cav BG. You'll have no reinforcement either.

EME. = Fitters and Recovery Vehicles
Would of been my guess

I’m kind of joining the dots that the M113 will still be around for some years
Maybe not in the old APC role but for many of the other duties.

Regards S