Actually IIRC, the anti-armour threat was what convinced Army that the protection afforded by an MBT was absolutely necessary on any ops that actually involve warfighting. Something the "Green Army" hasn't done since Vietnam...
Perhaps not but what does Army think it will be doing in the future? Which is more likely - fighting an armour heavy conflict on some plain somewhere (Iran perhaps) or intervening in a potential failed state in the islands? If its the former, then the number they have procured is pretty much a joke and if they're going to procure the numbers really needed, then how are they going to transport them to this great plain? If its the latter, then the numbers they have are an overkill and do they really think they'll need vehicles this well protected when their opponents will be using rocks? :roll2
The fact that our region is rapidly increasing it's armour capacity is well is yet another justification...
And again the questions are who are they, whom are increasing their armour capacity, aren't they our allies and where do you really think they'll employ them?
Well, wheeled vehicle would suffer the same kinds of problems ASLAV suffered in Timor during the wet season, in fact WORSE if the vehicle had to carry enough armour to withstand an RPG threat, so I hardly see the benefit THERE.
Bar armour is sufficient to defeat the RPG threat. While cross-country mobility is lower, onroad mobility is higher. It, like everything is a question of compromises.
A vehicle which can be airlifted by C-17, but is restricted to ech areas once deployed? Wow.
A vehicle that doesn't need a class 60 bridge over every river might be far more useful than one which does.
Now it's MY turn to ask, against whom?
Mmm, the local inhabitants perhaps? They obviously felt that some armour was required in East Timor and the Solomans to over-awe the locals. However they didn't feel the need for tanks, now did they?
Milne Bay, Sanananda, Buna, the "beachheads" you refer to all saw the use of armour against the Japanese. The fact that light armour (Stuart tanks) were all we HAD, was the reason they were employed.
Well, we actually had other vehicles available and used them. All were light. We could have used M3 Grants - the first deliveries of which had already begun but again the problem was more about the ability to deploy armour to these places rather than not whether we could use it, once it got there. We had no landing craft, except what we had captured from the Japanese and the lighters we had couldn't put vehicles across the beaches without considerable help and no interference.
Shaggy Ridge was a mountain for cyrin out loud. NO armour could have been used there.
We fought there though, now didn't we? You asked "where have we fought where armour couldn't be deployed". Examples were provided.
So a 120mm mortar or ATGW firing vehicle won't create a "butchers bill" but an Abrams will?
I wasn't referring to their butchers' bill, I was referring to our butchers' bill. :roll:
I agree, but you've stated that Army and RAN might be prevented from off-loading our Abrams at a port because of enemy action.
Yep, they may be. Mightn't it be better to have the ability to offload onto landingcraft and put them ashore that way, rather than relying on port facilities. East Timor needed the port facilities in Dili. The first place secured after the airport was where again? Oh, thats right, the port, wasn't it? No port and Jervis Bay wouldn't have been an exciting and different pleasure cruiseship and thats about all.
Yet another tactical problem that needs to be addressed. What if you're 747 carried LAV's come under fire? What if the airfield is destroyed?
Then we are stuffed. I'm not claiming this sort of method is perfect, just that it needs less facilities than do the M1s to deploy them.
Army is not going to deploy such a mission critical asset into a dangerous area, or one that has not already been cleared by light or special forces. Thinking otherwise is ridiculous.
So why then does it need to ro-ro capability of the C-17? Its a massively expensive aircraft just to provide a capability which is not necessary most of the time. When it was being procured, many in the RAAF didn't see a need for it. Yet the Army did, and their will prevailed. They obviously believe there was a need for the ability to land and come out fighting.
Of course, but I fail to see the difference between deploying your theoretical 40 ton vehicle of choice (which is what it WILL weigh if it has ANY chance of repelling RPG's) or a 63 ton Abrams with it's PROVEN ability to withstand anti-armour threats.
It need not weigh 40 tons. You're assuming the use of heavy armour. I'm actually envisaging, if needed, the use of some form of armoured screen like bar armour.
I think supporting the UN is a worthwhile mission for ADF, but I digress. Rwanda is not exactly a great example of the types of deployments we are considering. APC's and a single rifle company only. No deployed fire support assets, engineering assets etc. It was a medical mission, with a force protection package. Not a force designed for warfighting.
I agree but it did see armour deployed. Now, just for a moment assume the ADF will deploy to Darfur. Would you prefer them to go a'la Rwanda or something with a little more oomf to ensure that if the shit does fly, the diggers on the ground have a chance of surviving? If its the latter, I could see a lighter vehicle going. I cannot see Abrahms going.
Finding operable runways in this theoretical warzone of ours seems rather more dubious to me than the ability of ADF to send the Abrams where it needs it...
Does it? Why? All the major islands nowadays have airports with runways designed to support medium sized civilian aircraft. As usual, any deployment would be incremental and would start with lighter forces to secure the airport and heavy units to follow. A lightly loaded 747 has surprisingly good agility, as far as requirements for take off and landing lengths are concerned. Compared with what is required to carry the M1, you don't need the C-17 (a billion dollars a pop), you don't need specialised port facilities and you don't need good roads and bridges. Whats the point in having a vehicle which once it arrives can't leave the capital city or perhaps even its port?
Besides, when have we used 747's before and what 747 has a roll on roll off capability that can manage a 30-40 ton armoured vehicle?
Your first 747 carries ramps for later flights. Made from light bridging components, they could be assembled with light equipment in a few hours. Then the latter flights merely pull up to the ramp and then offload.
Of course we could just use a different method, altogether.
(IMG:
http://pilot.strizhi.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/img_0175_sm.jpg)
(IMG:
http://pilot.strizhi.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/img_0238_sm.jpg)
(IMG:
http://pilot.strizhi.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/img_0036_sm.jpg)
(IMG:
http://pilot.strizhi.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/img_0022_sm.jpg)
And which nation in Oceania can provide anything more than a light infantry force armed with small arms? Fiji alone perhaps with it's few 81mm mortars.
Which raises the question as to why we need the M1, now doesn't it?
However, you appear to underestimate the ability of even a lightly armed, determined enemy to dig themselves in. The Japanese and NLF/PAVN proved how hard it is to remove such a force.
Yes, I see a great need for vehicle mounted ATGW's and guided 120mm mortars against such a threat...
They aren't necessary but if your mythical armoured threat develops then it would be possible to upgrade our own capabilities to meed it, now wouldn't it?
Once again, it's hardly the same case today is it? RAN operating LCH's which can carry the Abrams and a replacement LCM fleet being purchased along with the Canberra Class LHD's it is buying.
This acquisition was planned before the Abrams was purchased. Again, where is the "distortion" of our force structure?
You appear to have forgotten the logistic requirements which the choice of the M1 forces upon us. A massive reallocation of resources to provide in particular fuel to these short-ranged vehicles. Then you need the transporters to move them. Then you need, so on and so on, all further along.
I don't agree with your idea that Abrams is not deployable by us, no.
Thats your choice. I can lead a horse to water but obviously I cannot make him inbibe. :lol:
Nor do I see that some sort of "tank destroyer" or "armoured mortar system" would provide an adequate replacement...
Again your choice. If we were facing a conventional enemy, armed with large quantities of AFVs, fighting either in the Top End or somewhere armour can be easily deployed and utilised en mass, I'd agree. We aren't though, are we? Therefore I believe the M1 is a waste of resources which could be better utilised.
