FutureTank
Banned Member
It is different. It is not necessarily inappropriate. What is required is a vehicle in the medium class - it does not have to fit the classic definition of a "tank", IMO but it should be armoured, at least to the point where it can withstand say an RPG or large Rcl/ATGW round (and that doesn't necessarily mean passive armour, either). It should be (relatively) easily transported by road/rail/ship/aircraft. It should have a large calibre gun (either MV 105mm or LV 165mm) and an ATGW system. Essentially we need an infantry support tank, rather like the AVRE. Optimised for knocking down buildings and blowing the crap out of strong points, with a secondary AT capability. The emphasis should be upon strategic, rather than tactical mobility. It is more important to get to the fight, preferably first, than have it sitting in Australia where it looks good on the parade ground but is patently useless to the diggers who need it in, well, wherever they are sent.
I think that before saying all of the above you need to consider what Australian Defence strategy is. Australian Defence strategy is to use its defence personnel to defend Australia and resolve international conflicts by force if need be.
The key term here is personnel. It is limited. The whole of Australian Army combat element, if brought to full readiness and had all personnel required in every unit, from regular and reserve personnel would form one combat infantry division with three brigades of which one would be mechanised and two motorised.
To my mind an infantry division needs big gun support as you are suggesting also. However the job of ADF is to foresee all possible worst case threat scenarios, and while the buildings are more numerous, the enemy main battle tanks are that worst case. The appropriate weapon against a main battle tank is another main battle tank. A division should have at least a regiment of tanks, and I mean a regiment and not the Commonwealth one-battalion type, but at least two battalions worth of 50, or three battalions of 40. This was the intention with Leopard 1s (or close to it).
It may be that eventually, and maybe even soon, missiles will be developed to enable attack of tank’s horizontal surfaces from the top, but this would only lead to development of countermeasures for them. There is no countermeasure against a DF tank round other then armour. However the tank also needs to support the infantry, and hence has to carry HE as well as AT ammunition. I can assure you that a 120mm round can do anything a 165mm round can to satisfy infantry needs. For more then that infantry has its brothers in arms, the sappers.
Having said this, I think you need to realise that Australia is unlikely to send a full division overseas. If this happens, it will not leave before the second division is trained up from national conscription pool. Given this, Australia would be really strapped for tanks if something suddenly turned very nasty. In all other contingencies no more then one brigade group would go overseas, and as was pointed out in another post, a battalion group is far more likely. It is therefore unlikely that more then a squadron will go on deployment at any one time. This will allow for a three squadron rotation, with one being utilised in training (so really a two-squadron regiment).
There is a problem with heavy tanks, and that is fuel. It’s hard to keep them going outside of Australia, and will prove more expensive as oil production dwindles towards their end of service life.
On the other hand, if you are the commander deploying far from Australia, and you are likely to be outnumbered, what you want is an AFV that can survive the odds. It is nice to have more of the lighter versions you propose, but with proliferation of AT weapons, it is nicer to have whatever survives them longest.
Soviet designs are lighter. However they are lighter because they are, pardon the cliché, “built for speed” due to a doctrine imposition which has remained constant since 1939. They are built to suit unique Soviet operational concepts and strategic environment. By and large they are not built for blasting away at buildings. Soviets considered that for infantry purposes a 73mm warhead or a 30mm HV round are sufficient. Israelis think a 60mm weapon is enough. All I know is that cruising through a city block filled with hostiles at 10km/h is not what tankers like to do in their spare time. I would want to be in something very well protected if called upon to do so.
.
