Australian Army - New fire team structure

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Hi, I read a small snippet on Janes news online which said the following:

The Australian Army is set to make a major change to its infantry units by adopting a 'fire team' structure within its infantry sections

Is this just the basic 2x 4 man fire teams with a sqaud leader or something new?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Whiskyjack said:
Hi, I read a small snippet on Janes news online which said the following:

The Australian Army is set to make a major change to its infantry units by adopting a 'fire team' structure within its infantry sections

Is this just the basic 2x 4 man fire teams with a sqaud leader or something new?
It's a trial only at this stage, and each section in an infantry battalion will now form 2x 4 man fire teams. Additional fire support weapons teams will be created (and maybe even provided with additional weapons, if we're lucky!!!), thus increasing the manning levels of the battalions.

With our struggle to man our battalions now, I can't see this being too successful. The Army has tried numerous times to evolve and improve itself. The bottom line is always money. There's isn't any...
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Aussie Digger said:
It's a trial only at this stage, and each section in an infantry battalion will now form 2x 4 man fire teams. Additional fire support weapons teams will be created (and maybe even provided with additional weapons, if we're lucky!!!), thus increasing the manning levels of the battalions.

With our struggle to man our battalions now, I can't see this being too successful. The Army has tried numerous times to evolve and improve itself. The bottom line is always money. There's isn't any...
I thought that each section already consisted of 2x 4 man fire teams, with a sqaud leader? I know that Britain (minus the sqaud leader, the US and NZ have followed this structure for a while now.

Are Australia only now introducing this?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Whiskyjack said:
I thought that each section already consisted of 2x 4 man fire teams, with a sqaud leader? I know that Britain (minus the sqaud leader, the US and NZ have followed this structure for a while now.

Are Australia only now introducing this?
Australian infantry sections are based on a 9 man formation, comprised of a "gun group" an "assault group" and a command group (each of 3 personnel). The section is commanded by a Corporal - the section commander.

The new structure proposes to operate 2x 4 person fire teams, and a single 4x person "support" or "heavy weapons" team, increasing the section size to 12. THAT's why I don't think this new structure will work...
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
Aussie Digger said:
Australian infantry sections are based on a 9 man formation, comprised of a "gun group" an "assault group" and a command group (each of 3 personnel). The section is commanded by a Corporal - the section commander.

The new structure proposes to operate 2x 4 person fire teams, and a single 4x person "support" or "heavy weapons" team, increasing the section size to 12. THAT's why I don't think this new structure will work...
The New Zealand Army has just done something similar, although the results are not public yet and will have to be based around the LAVIII.

Will the new Structure have a 13th person commanding?

If I was a suspisious person, I would say that the new structure will work....with only two squads a platoon, especially if the new 'heavy weapons' team is drawn from the support company fire support elements.

Do you have any references I could access regarding this info?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
The new Australian infantry section is supposed to be 12 persons in total with the Section commander, (Corporal) placed in one of the 4 man fire teams and the other 2 fire teams will each be commanded by a Lance-Corporal.

I don't have an official link for this announcement, it was made by Brigadier Jim KELLY (Australian Army's Director of Land warfare development). It was announced in the Australian Defence Magazine, which can be found here: http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/ but I think that interview with Brig KELLY has been removed...

All of these announcements are probably awaiting the release of the new Strategic outlook update and defence capability papers, which are due out in December sometime.

Other Army capabilities such as the push for an additional mechanised infantry battalion for 1 Brigade are also before Government, but are unlikely to be released until these papers come out...
 

Snayke

New Member
If a section is commanded by a corporal, what do sergeants command? Assuming it's organised by sections, then platoons which would be lead by 2lts. Well, I don't really know, I just assume. I don't really know the group structure of the Australian army.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Thanks, that is interesting, just thinking how it will integrate with equipment, you would need two Bushmasters per section, but a black hawk would be able to lift an entire section.

It would also make a platoon with three sections around 40 men, more in line with the USMC. Also interesting to see what will happen to the fire support elements in a Battalion.

I also understand some battalions in the Australian Army have 4 rifle companies and some have 3? Does anyone know if this is correct?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
All infantry battalions in the Australian Army currently have a paper strength of 4 rifle companies, 1 support company (mortar platoon, direct fire support platoon, recon platoon, combat engineer platoon), 1x Admin Company (RAEME, Catering, Sigs, transport elements etc) and the Battalion HQ.

It is the manning levels of the individual units that determine how many companies they operate. Many Australian battalions are understrength and that is why they operate only 3 rifle coy's...

Snayke, Sergeants normally don't command anything. In an infantry platoon or Cavalry/Armoured troop, Sergeants are the 2nd in command, behind a Lieutenant. They undertake the admin duties of the platoon/troop (ie: organising supplies, resupply's, fuel, ammunition, etc) in order to allow the platoon commander, the time to dedicate to his commanding duties, liaising with Company Commanders (Majors normally) etc. Sgt's take command of a platoon should the Lieutenant temporarily not be available for some reason....
 

machina

New Member
Good article in The Australian about this.

Revamp to create fast, lethal army

Patrick Walters, National security editor
November 29, 2005


AUSTRALIA'S army will be restructured into nine highly flexible "battle groups" capable of being rapidly deployed to wage war or perform peacekeeping duties under a $1.8 billion plan to be put to cabinet's national security committee tomorrow.

The radical overhaul, the biggest transformation of the army's organisation since World War II, would see land forces boosted by an extra 2500 combat troops - almost 10 per cent - by 2012.

Defence Minister Robert Hill hopes to win in-principle cabinet support for his "hardening and networking" submission, which aims to restructure the army to cope with the more dangerous global environment.

It will signal a major shift from the army's existing organisation, based on light infantry battalions of between 750 and 800 soldiers.

The planned changes would see each new "battle group" -- about 750-strong and based on current battalions and regiments -- equipped with all the assets to wage war in the 21st-century battlefield, including artillery, tanks and helicopters.

New deployable army formations -- ranging from the battle groups to the smallest four-man "fire team" -- would be a great deal more lethal and nimble, better protected, and more adaptable than the army's existing five mainstream infantry battalions.

But with senior ministers still to agree on future real funding increases for Defence beyond 2010, Senator Hill is likely to be asked to bring another detailed costing submission on the army's plan to cabinet budget sessions early next year.

Senator Hill will also seek endorsement tomorrow for Defence's new strategic update paper, which backs the need for a bigger army in the face of global terrorism and nuclear weapons proliferation.

The army's goal is to create two composite brigade-sized units, each consisting of 3000 soldiers, equipped with artillery, aviation, armoured vehicles and engineering support.

This would enable a brigade-strength force to be maintained on operations overseas simultaneously with a smaller battalion or battle group -- a key goal set by the Government for the future army in the 2000 Defence White Paper and not yet achieved.
Under the changes, the army would grow to about 28,000 personnel, compared with its current strength of around 25,500. The army already has approval to lift its strength to 26,500, but is struggling to fill recruitment targets.

The bigger force would allow the creation of an extra battalion or battle group, as well as enabling hollowed-out units to become fully operational.

The army plan would also see all units "networked", with even individual soldiers given access to sophisticated communications and intelligence links.

Army chief Peter Leahy has argued that hardening and networking the army is essential if Australia is to retain a genuine landforce fighting capability in coming decades. The 10-year restructuring plan will also see some regular army units moving interstate, with the 3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment moving to Adelaide from Holsworthy, in Sydney's west, by 2012.

The new "modular" structure would be more agile and adaptable than the army's traditional combat units and capable of a wider range of independent operations as well as being capable of slotting into bigger fighting formations should the need arise.
Cabinet's national security committee is yet to approve a continuation of 3 per cent real growth for the Defence budget beyond 2010 -- an increase that will be essential to achieve the army restructuring.

Senator Hill has won a reprieve from John Howard for two of the three submissions he had hoped to bring to cabinet earlier this month.

The Prime Minister had wanted cabinet consideration of the Defence submissions postponed until next year, but Senator Hill successfully lobbied for the Defence update and the army plan to be considered before Christmas.

The third submission, on funding levels and the future defence capability plan, will be held over until next year, according to senior government sources.

The army plans to offset some of the cost of the restructuring plan from the sale of asset, including valuable property in the Sydney area. Army reservists are also set to play a more active role in the new deployable battle groups.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17395937%255E601,00.html
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
It's about time some serious attention was being made to the Australian Army. Despite our defence posture being dictated by "experts" such as Paul DIBB, which advocated our defence forces possessing high level Naval and Air Forces, but neglecting our Army and deployment capabilities and relegating them to "support" roles for the Air Force and Navy, it is our Army which has been called upon to do the bulk of our operational deployments...

It has done this undermanned and ill-equipped for most of the roles it has been thrust into, with only "crash" acquisitions and heavy reliance on our allies capabilities allowing us to partially fill the numerous gaps in our Army's capabilities...

Even now in Al Muthana, our 450 strong force has replaced a 1500 strong Dutch force, equipped with attack helo's, heavy armour and it's own artillery. We have deployed a light infantry force mounted in light wheeled armour, with no helo capability of ANY kind, let alone attack helo's, no heavy armour and no in-direct firepower of ANY kind, let alone artillery... Statements from our Defence Minister like: "our ASLAV vehicles are the envy of many coalition forces" are designed to cover up the reality of these deployments.

Yes, I'm sure our coalition ally troops are envious of not being able to sit in a lightly armoured wheeled vehicle and would much prefer to instead of their highly armoured tracked Warrior and Bradley IFV's...

Of course we have cleverly managed to deploy our forces to the most secure part of Iraq, a part where British forces patrol in soft skinned Land Rovers, I might add, so it's easy to talk up our capabilities I suppose... I'd like to see how well these advanced capabilities of ours would go in Baghdad for any extended periods. Our sole confrontation with an IED in Iraq to date, left our vaunted ASLAV on it's side, completely vulnerable to any follow-up attack and unable to continue operating.

Our 3 personnel in the vehicle were all injured an unable to continuing operating, with 2 personell so severely injured that they had to be evacuated out of Iraq for medical attention. Fortunately neither died, but I'm sure it was a great consolation to them "how well their ASLAV" protected them...

Anyway rant off. Let's hope some serious changes for the better, come from these proposals.
 

cherry

Banned Member
Well said Aussie Digger, I understand your frustrations and totally support your view. But from what I can gather (I know we haven't heard anything in any great detail yet, nor have we heard anything "official" from anyone within Defence) there probably won't be any additional heavy armour aquisitions to support this new structure, we will probably have too do with the pathetically small numbers of Abrams we are getting and survive without a true IFV.

You seem to know quite a lot about the ADF (obviously have or are currently serving) but I am quite uneducated about the ADF (being a civilian) but am extremely interested in our Defence Force (would love to join but already have my dream job), so I was wondering if you could post some information that outlines the structure of different brigades/ battallions etc as I don't know what the hell people are refering to when they talk about troops, units, brigades, HQs, batallions etc. I would really appreciate it. :)

Hopefully we will hear some more information over the next few weeks about this topic.
 

driftder

New Member
cherry said:
...so I was wondering if you could post some information that outlines the structure of different brigades/ battallions etc as I don't know what the hell people are refering to when they talk about troops, units, brigades, HQs, batallions etc. I would really appreciate it. :) ...
sorry to be a wet blanket but let's NOT. just had some news the terrs just lambasted the Thai and Malaysian government. oh and we just went up one notch to orange. nice color eh?

if we must discuss formations, ToE etc, let's be general, don't give so much details. I might be laughed at for being over paranoid but hey, if you are stuck on a island less then 50km2, you be too right?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
That order of battle is pretty good, but doesn't outline the structure of the units themselves, only the existence of the units. Drifter, none of this basic stuff is "secret", it's freely available on any number of websites, including the Australian Defence Forces own...

Cherry, I'll start with the infantry (my former Corps). The basic unit of infantry in the Australian Army is the infantry section. These are comprised (at the moment) of 9 soldiers and are commanded by a Corporal.

Each Section comes under the umbrella of a platoon with each platoon comprising 3 infantry sections in total. A platoon is commanded by a Lieutenant (pronounced "leftenant") and also has a platoon Sergeant, platoon medic and platoon signaller. A platoon (at full strength) therefore numbers about 30 troops.

Each platoon comes underneath a rifle company. The rifle company comprises 3 platoons and command group and sometimes a support section. Each rifle platoon is commanded by a Major. Administration and disciplinary matters amongst the O/R's (other ranks, ie: those that aren't officers) is handled by a Company Sergeant Major (CSM) whose rank is normally a Warrant Officer Class 2. A rifle company (at full strength) numbers about 120 troops.

A battalion is the next sized unit up from a company. Each battalion (theoretically) has 4 rifle companies, a support company (containing a Mortar platoon, [81mm mortars] a direct fire support weapons, [DFSW] platoon [7.62mm MAG-58 GPMG's, 84mm Carl Gustav short range anti-armour weapons, and now Javelin medium range anti-armour weapons) a reconnaisance platoon (including a "sniper cell" where our snipers reside) and an Assault Pioneer platoon [infantryman who are trained to provide basically a combat engineer type capability, but without heavy plant].

A battalion also has an Administration Company, which comprise a Catering platoon, transport platoon, RAEME platooon [mechanins/engineers], signals platoon and the unit's "Q store" (basically the warehouse where you get your kit from). There is also a battalion headquarters (BHQ) which has an RAP (Regimental Aide post, like a GP's surgery), the unit Band is also normally attached to BHQ and those most important soldiers within a battalion "pay clerks" are also attached normally to BHQ. A battalion is commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel and normally numbers around 700-750 persons (at full strength).

A battalion is the largest infantry-centric unit in the army. Other unit's like Cavalry Regiments have a similar structure. Except for armoured units, a platoon is known as a troop and a company is known as a Squadron. There's also different numbers of personel in each armoured unit (depending on it's role) so it's difficult to give a run down on the manning of EACH armoured Corps unit...

An artillery unit has different names again. A platoon is known as a troop within Artillery units, however a company is known as a Battery within Arty circles... An artillery regiment will comprise different number of batteris depending on the number of units they need to support. Again manning levels are different for different units. Each Artillery Battery is equipped with 6 guns (howitzers) at present.

Moving up from the battalion/Regiment level are Brigades. Brigades within the Australian Army are all over the shop, however they normally comprise, 3 infantry battalions, 1 armoured/cavalry regiment, 1x artillery regiment and a number of supporting units. Each Brigade is (theoretically) around 3000 strong and is commanded by a Brigadier. The Australian Army comprises 11 Brigades in total (though only 3 are actually even close to being sufficiently equipped and manned so as to be used in a conflict).

These 11 Brigades are split between 2 Divisions. The 1st and 2nd Division. Each Division is commanded by (I believe) a Major General. The 1st Division is the operation Division and comprises ALL of our high readiness units and a number of independant units such as our Norforce units and 16 Air Defence Regiment which doesn't come under any specific Brigade, command. 1 Division also has the 16th Aviation Brigade, which brings all the Army's aviation assets under it's command. It's not a brigade in the sense of a "normal" Brigade however, operating no infantry/armour/artillery units.

The 2nd Division comprises the majority of our reserve units and is the notional "expansion" base should our Army need to expand in a time of national crisis.

That'll do for the time being I think. Let me know if there's anything else I can help out with...
 

driftder

New Member
well since you put it that way, AD, it is really basic stuff but then why make it easy for them to confirm that? btw you just describe the formation structure of my old regiment:D but then most Commonwealth armies share the old Brit regiment formation unless it's mixed up with some Russkie stuff.

Let's see - squad, section, platoon, coy or company, battalion, regiment, brigade, division, corps - think you mostly covered it all except for the AD (air defense), Pioneers, combat assault engineers, the Paras and the Guards (thats one of our formations, as Oz don't have Guards formation).

But I digress - let's get back to Oz.
 
Top