And defensive systems such as Coyote 2 are beginning to be rolled out to meet the threat. It’s the latest arena of the arms v armour battle and I have observed that crystal ball gazing is usually a complete waste of time…
And defensive systems such as Coyote 2 are beginning to be rolled out to meet the threat. It’s the latest arena of the arms v armour battle and I have observed that crystal ball gazing is usually a complete waste of time…
Are we really? What revolution?
Following the 1973 war observers were quick to claim that ATGWs had made the MBT obsolete [in actuality most MBT kills were from other MBTs not Sagger] and following the Nargano Karabkh war [where operational condituons were perfect for the successful employment of UASs] the claim was made; about UASs making MBTs obsolete. If you remember; in the 1960's claims were made that the missile armed FAC had made corvettes, frigates and destroyers obsolete. As it turned out all those claims were highly flawed and premature.
ATGWs have been around for a long time and so have UASs. Neither have done away with the need for MBTs and IFVs. Just like how ATGWs and UASs; MBTs and IFVs perform specific functions - supplementing and not doing away with the need for each other.
Last edited:
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
Perhaps a little crystal ball gazing is better that than spending $18 to 27 Billion on what may be a complete waste of money.
Can you say for certain that in a future conflict that the ADF's MBTs and IFVs will be a waste of money and that the cheaper to acquire UASs and ATGWs will provide the needed capabilities?
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
I would look at it differently.
Australia is an Island nation.
Any circumstance where the Australian Government decides to use Tanks/IFVs will almost certainly mean they are deployed overseas.
In a foreign land supporting a Foreign Government or as an ally, say of the US, Uk etc
That will be a voluntary decision made by Government.
It is not a capability likely vital for the survival of the nation or defence of the nation.
It is a "nice to have" not a "need to have".
Unlike a fighter capability say, with the ability to attack aircraft or naval vessels approaching Australia.
4 Weeks ago I would have supported spending the tens of billions needed for 75 M1A2Cs and 388 IFVs.
Now I am not sure that whatever you want to achieve with that small fleet of armoured vehicles cannot be achieved in other ways for far less money.
Just my view.
Whose life are you willing to bet on this?
Not your own I would guess.
So if we have to fight an aggressor in our island approaches, you want to send infantry without armoured support? That situation is not a war of choice. Have you paid any attention to what has happened to Russia’s elite airborne forces when they faced Ukrainian mechanised/armoured forces? Possessing armoured forces also means any aggressor needs to bring a lot of heavy forces (and associated logistics trains) if they want to invade Australia. In effect substantive armoured forces acts as a deterrent to an aggressor with designs on Australia. Your assumptions also fly in the face of every other significant army in the region (all of whom operate MBTs and IFVs). None of these regional armies rely on light forces alone.
Last edited:
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
Armoured support will not be very useful on our Island approaches.
I have. They arrived with almost NO anti-armour capability and ran out of ammunition when they were not resupplied. Not sure what that proves.
Have you paid any attention to what is happening to Russian Armoured forces. They are being decimated by light infantry with guided and unguided Anti-Tank Weapons supported by a tiny number of drones, NOT by Ukranian armour.
@MARKMILES77 You have been here long enough to know the rules. Provide the link to the source for this graphic please.
Ngatimozart.
Last edited by a moderator:
And if you wanted to hinge the defence of Australia off letting an enemy penetrate to the suburbs of Sydney before using militia to engage with ATGMs you would have a point.
They will be in the event the ADF has to.deployed the Asian mainland to operate against an opponent's armour; as part of a,war of maneuver. In such a scenario not having the required armour but having UASs and ATGWs will not provide the solutions.
You have the actual numbers to show that Russian armour has been''decimated'? How accurate are the numbers you provided? Of the total number of Russian armoured vehicles lost; -how many were actually destroyed by ATGWs? Also, what about Ukrainian armoured losses? Similar claims were made after the 1973 war and the 2006 war in Lebanon; both turned out to be untrue.
Part of the reason the Ukrainians have not deployed armour in large numbers is because that would play to Russia's strengths.
Last edited:
Take the Ukranian numbers with a grain of salt, At same time take Russian numbers with a grain of salt.
What is happening to Russian forces needs to be taken into context. Not all their forces are fully trained (Conscripts), They have shocking logistical support, Their aerial assets have been hit and miss in availability, From the few video's seen ground units dont seem to be doing their required role within the armored formations (Possibly related to training issues?). At the end of the day there is no one all be all of solutions in the military, Different battles require different assets and often enough all assets from morters, artillery, ATGM's, armored vehicles, Tanks, Logistical support, Engineers, aerial support, up to time intel etc etc etc all working in harmony to achieve the best result at the lowest possible cost (Talking manpower wise first, material second).
Now Russia on the face of it appears to be having issues against ATGM's so it can come down to two things, Either A. Tanks have had their day or B. The Russian forces aren't working in perfect harmony with each other. Based upon what I have seen to date at lease it is the latter rather then the former.
The only countries in the region which don't operate MBTs are Brunei and Timor Leste.
Part of the reason is they did not expect such determined, organised and spirited resistance. They did not deploy per established doctrine.
There is an excellent video on the Donbass/Ukraine thread showing an ambush on a Russian column. The Russians reacted fast; tanks got into position to return fire and troops dismounted.
Last edited:
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
So is it some units are up to scratch and others arent or some are just better at adapting to high commands FUBAR planning? In any case just goes to show ATGM's arent the be all end all of the battlefield.
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
I don't think we should equip the ADF in case it has to deploy to "the Asian mainland to operate against an opponent's armour" .
Presumably you are thinking China?
No One has the "Actual" numbers.
The best (as far as I am aware) OSINT assessment of Ukranian and Russian Vehicle losses can be found below but please note only losses which are definitively visually confirmed by OSINT are included.
ORYX
Attack On Europe: Documenting Equipment Losses During The 2022 Russian Invasion Of Ukraine
Oryx Thursday, February 24, 2022 Bayraktar TB2 , DNR 329 Comments
By Stijn Mitzer in collaboration with Joost Oliemans Kemal, Dan and Jakub Janovsky
A detailed list of the destroyed and captured vehicles and equipment of both sides can be seen below. This list is constantly updated as additional footage becomes available.
This list only includes destroyed vehicles and equipment of which photo or videographic evidence is available. Therefore, the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here.
If you can point me to any other better sources I would appreciate it.
They have never been; not in 1973, 2006 or any other conflict.
They can cause losses [American M-1s in Iraq, Turkish Leopards in Syria, Merkavas in Lebanon, Russian T-80s in Chechnya, etc] but by themselves have never created decisive results.
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
For the defence of Australia I would prefer:
F-35s with NSMs/JASSM/JSOW
F-18s and P8s with LRASM
Submarines with MK 48s/Harpoons/Tomohawks
and Land based Anti Ship Missiles.
If we are planning to "hinge the defence of Australia" on allowing the enemy to land near Darwin and then fight them off with 75 Tanks and some IFVs we are screwd!
@MARKMILES77
You are certainly entitled to your option and you have a right to express it. Others have a right to counter your points and their option deserves to be heard as well.
In tis case your responses to the view of the Defpros is becoming a shrill when they counter your view based on their experience. Simply rejecting their option based on your option without considering the response you are getting is not helpful and is simply causing angst.
Please moderate your tone.
alexsa
Last edited by a moderator:
Watch Blackhawk Down and tell me what happens to light forces without armour…
Last edited:
This is a ridiculous misrepresentation and you know it. Our Army fights with combined arms battlegroups and you know that too. it’s also fights jointly with services that have or are in the process of acquiring those capabilities you mention above. It’s not an and / or situation…
Last edited:
It boiled down to a battalion's worth of Malaysian APCs [thinly armoured and with no night vision]supported by Little Birds to get the Yanks out. Previous attempts with lorries and HUMVEEs failed.