Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[kato]

AGLs are only of limited use for suppressive fire. Suppressive fire is meant to keep the enemy's head down while your own maneuver elements move into position.
Replacing suppressive fire with aimed fire - especially against targets in defilade - is only possible when you have the target's position, and enough time (for the airburst) to lay a rangefinder solution to it first. You can't apply that against a number of dispersed targets for example, unlike suppressive fire.

An AGL with somewhat more predictable income (around 4 seconds to 1,000 meters!), low on-weapon ammunition supply (32-round belts commonly in non-vehicle-mounted installations) and a large logistics and transportation footprint (in comparison) isn't exactly suited for such anyway.

 

[Todjaeger]

I have been reading up on shotguns lately, and came across the AA-12 shotgun here. Given that it can have an effective range out to ~175 yards and with the ability to fire specialty 12 gauge HE, HEAP and frag rounds, would such a weapon have a place amongst support weapons for RAR units?

I would think such a weapon could replace an Austeyr with 40mm GL attachment on a sectional or perhaps platoon level, and also provide improved firepower during urban/close combat.

What I am unsure of is how much of a burden would such a weapon place on logistics if deployed outside of TAG/TAG(E) and similar units.

-Cheers

 

[flyboyEB]

I had read that the use of shotguns was banned years ago by the Hague or Geneva Convention, although that does sound unlikely, seeing as they were used so often in WW1 and Vietnam.
What is the spread of the shot over the ~175 yard range? Collateral damage could be a problem at ranges like that

 

[kato]

I had read that the use of shotguns was banned years ago by the Hague or Geneva Convention, although that does sound unlikely, seeing as they were used so often in WW1 and Vietnam.

Germany claimed that, particularly in WW1 - citing the ban on weapons producing superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering (and iirc also the ban on explosive bullets under 20mm caliber, though that doesn't really apply).

Shotguns were still pretty widely used (back then), though use pretty much disappeared (outside specialty applications such as door breaching) with first the disappearance of trench warfare, and then the wider introduction of body armour. There's a very limited resurgence of shotguns with the increase in urban combat, and the appearance of a number of specialty shells (such as HE-FRAG).

The AA-12 is hyped a lot, in particular by individuals such as David Crane.

What is the spread of the shot over the ~175 yard range?

The 175 yard (575 feet) figure is specifically for the FRAG-12 ammunition - and even that is hyped, the round drops significantly after 100m, necessitating high firing arcs for the full range.
"Regular" range (with slugs) is usually stated at around 100 feet. Shot would have... well, significantly less range, in particular from the 13" CQB version.

 

[croc]

The Dutch would likely have been substantially cheaper and in service alot earlier. Is there some capability lacking in the Dutch version that has been included in the proposed Australian version? Otherwise it makes more sense to go with the Dutch offer.

Not necessarily, as far as I can tell from the media reports, there are number of difference between NL version and what defence have stipulated.
Such as:
- RWS
- Integration to AFATDS
- Higher standard of Protection level and so on.

The initial acquisition cost is not the only driving factor for the decision but clearly entire cost for through life support of the equipment. Lack of information on TLS was the original reason for Dutch offer being rejected.

All being equal, AS9 may have edge over PzH2000NL when you consider the whole of life cost and when you consider the current mass production capacity of AS9, they should be able to deliver just as quickly as or even quicker than the Germans could.

 

[Waylander]

AFAIK the NL version of the PzH2000 has the same level of protection like the other ones (Germany, Italy, Greece) but I don't know if they aquired the ERA tiles for top protection.
Could this be what is meant with "higher standard of protection level"?

And Australia wants to have a remote controlled weapons station for their howitzers? Why?
A normal GPMG at the hatch should be enough for a SPH and a RWS just increases the price.

 

[kato]

- Integration to AFATDS

PzH2000 is ADLER-II-Compatible, meaning even the already installed software in Dutch and German service can be integrated into AFATDS networks through ASCA interfaces.

 

[Waylander]

IIRC the dutch have "only" ADLER I in service but this should also be compatible, no?

 

[kato]

this should also be compatible, no?

Supposedly, yes. Though i think ADLER-I had to be retrofitted with ASCA interfaces, the PzH2000NL should have 'em.

 

[croc]

AFAIK the NL version of the PzH2000 has the same level of protection like the other ones (Germany, Italy, Greece) but I don't know if they aquired the ERA tiles for top protection.
Could this be what is meant with "higher standard of protection level"?

Not sure about the ERA tiles for the top protection but would not discount it. More importantly, belly armor protection is more of an importance particularly with recent IED experiance.

 

[Waylander]

Hmmm, I never heard of any SPH being specially protected against mines/IEDs and the PzH2000 is no exception in that be it dutch ones or any other one in service.

And I have to say that the IED threat for SPHs is relatively low compared to other vehicles which are used for patrols and/or direct combat.

 

[croc]

Hmmm, I never heard of any SPH being specially protected against mines/IEDs and the PzH2000 is no exception in that be it dutch ones or any other one in service.

And I have to say that the IED threat for SPHs is relatively low compared to other vehicles which are used for patrols and/or direct combat.

I thought PzH2000 had an add-on belly armor option?

 

[Grandstrat]

'Better than a bullet in the gut'

Frank Walker
May 4, 2008

AUSTRALIAN troops on the front line in Afghanistan are being rushed new Star Wars-style full body armour after one soldier was shot dead and several others wounded last week.

For the first time, the troops can wear bulletproof material covering the entire body, including groin, buttocks, arms and legs. Their existing armour covers only chest and back.

Made with synthetic fabrics and a ceramic shell, the new armour is designed to stop armour-piercing bullets. Soldiers in Afghanistan will start receiving the armour at the end of this month after the Australian manufacturer lifted production last week, following news of the Aussie casualties.

Lance Corporal Jason Marks was killed in a firefight with Taliban forces. Four others were wounded but survived.

Brian Rush, managing director of the Bendigo manufacturer Australian Defence Apparel, said: "We are doing our best to speed up production."

The company has an $80 million contract to make 14,000 kits.

"We don't want to give secrets away but I can say that this new aramid [protective fabric] compound is the best in the world," Mr Rush said.

"We had to laugh when we finally saw it on a real soldier as it looked like the stormtroopers in Star Wars."

The armour comes in two camouflage covers - one for desert warfare, the other for jungle operations.

"The chest piece weighs about the same as the current kit, but even though the full kit weighs 17 kilograms, it is better than getting a bullet in your gut," Mr Rush said.

In Afghanistan last October, Australian Private Philip Hodgskiss was shot twice in the back by an AK-47 but lived because of his body armour. A week later, Sergeant Matthew Locke died when he was shot while not wearing armour.

The bullet entered from above, through his shoulder, a shot that might not have been lethal if he had been wearing the new armour.

Australian Defence Association spokesman Neil James welcomed the new body armour, but warned it was not the answer in all situations. "You can never have full armour protection as it hinders mobility. You would not wear it climbing and at 17 kilos you could not wear it for long."

From the Sun Herald today. Any comments on anyone who has actually worn it? Or the armour it is replacing?

 

[Waylander]

I thought PzH2000 had an add-on belly armor option?

I have to admit that if such a thing exists I have never heard of it.

 

[croc]

17kg + 20kg back pack, that is a lot of weight to carry around in the mountains of Afghanistan. I would have thought it would more likely hinder free movement of the soldier. It will take lot of getting use to.

That a side, if it can save our boys in tight situation what more would you want.

 

[the road runner]

Its great to see that our troops are recieving new body armour and even better that it is a modual system where extra armour can be added for a specific mission.Can anyone please tell me,is this specific body armour Australian designed?<<<<<<<great to see it built in OZ.
Been trying to find it on the net but cannot find any.

MEEP MEEP

 

[winnyfield]

I have to admit that if such a thing exists I have never heard of it.

Krauss-Maffei Wegmann has a Leopard 2 variant called A6M - 'M' for mine protection.

Considering that KWM also does the Pzh 2000, it shouldn't be a big ask.

 

[kato]

I thought PzH2000 had an add-on belly armor option?

It doesn't. Protection should be against the standard stuff (12 kg AT blast mine etc).
Just because there's a belly armour upgrade for the Leopard 2, doesn't mean one is even possible with the PzH2000. The PzH2000 uses a completely different chassis, which is pretty much maxed out in structural weight support.

 

[Waylander]

I am aware of the mine protection kit for the Leo II which is in service with Germany, Sweden and Canada (on their leased tracks).

Bit as Kato said there is no such thing for the PzH2000.
And as I said before I cannot understand why Australia would want to have a specially mine protected SPH while the whole rest of the world is fine with normal ones.

One is not doing patrols like for example with a Bushmaster or direct assaults/combat like the Canadians with their Leos.
Without these tasks the threat of the really big mines/IEDs is considerably less.

Like a RWS such a mine protection kit is unnecessary for a SPH. It only helps to keep the costs even higher.

 

[croc]

It doesn't. Protection should be against the standard stuff (12 kg AT blast mine etc).
Just because there's a belly armour upgrade for the Leopard 2, doesn't mean one is even possible with the PzH2000. The PzH2000 uses a completely different chassis, which is pretty much maxed out in structural weight support.

Kato, are you suggesting track vehicles are equipped with 12kg AT mines as standard? I don't know any tracked vehicle with that level of protection. Wheeled vehicles with V hull may be able to withstand the 12kg AT Blast mine but tracked vehicles?