Not necessarily; remember however that it's been standard to link and stack multiple (usually two, or even up to four) TM46, TM57, TMA-3 and such in order to boost them to adequately mission-kill both tracked vehicles and MPVs since the 70s.
winnyfield
New Member
I think it's more about PR. As with the Abrams purchase, one way of justifying it was that it is better protected; rockets, mines etc.
You are making the whole thing look too easy. One can for sure say that in recent assymetric conflicts there has been a big IED problem.
Nevertheless tracked SPHs are one of the less threatened vehicles in theater compared to lots of other assets.
I am fully in line with making your patrol vehicles, APCs, IFVs and MBTs as mine resistant as possible but IMHO the costs compared to the real threat just don't justify such an investment.
The mine/IED threat for SPHs for example in A-stan is not much bigger than in a conventional war they are originally constructed for.
It's not like a SPH - in an asymmetric war, unlike a "real" war - would move much anyway. They're primarily used as semi-static artillery firebases, same as towed howitzers.
Their movement, unlike patrol or assault vehicles, would primarily happen through secured, prepared corridors anyway - that's a must anyway, since there are barely any bridges and only a narrow selection of roads in Afghanistan that can carry a SPH.
If the enemy "can strike anywhere" - it would be much more sensible to station an infantry platoon or two with the SPH outpost, perhaps with one or two vehicles of their own, instead of installing a (relatively useless) RWS.
Their movement, unlike patrol or assault vehicles, would primarily happen through secured, prepared corridors anyway - that's a must anyway, since there are barely any bridges and only a narrow selection of roads in Afghanistan that can carry a SPH.
If the enemy "can strike anywhere" - it would be much more sensible to station an infantry platoon or two with the SPH outpost, perhaps with one or two vehicles of their own, instead of installing a (relatively useless) RWS.
Capt. Picard
New Member
Perhaps less MEEP and more searching.
Do a Google search on Australian Defence Apparel, the company named in the story.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
From what BuglerBilly says I hope not.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138827&postcount=868
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138844&postcount=869
Last edited:
the road runner
Active Member
The reason why i asked the members for infomation on the new body armour for the ADF is because there is alot of mis information on the internet
I was hopeing that one of the members here might have worked on the project and had first hand information.(instead of 10 th hand info,whith a bit of chinese wispers added in)
I remember going to a site where it said the ADF was close to signing a contract with Dragonskin for 3000 units<<<this ended up beieng wrong!
Capt.Picard that is why i ask the members for there insight into the body armour ,as there may have been someone who worked on it in this forum.
Im no defense analyst <<<<<<<but there are a number here who are, and they have the right insight and information on and topic.This is the main reason why i ask the forum as i believe they have the answers for my questions.
AND the internet is a good source of info,but it is not always right with the info it shows.All i am saying is that i would take the word of a professional defence analyst over a company website trying to flog there product
MEEP MEEP
nfloorl:
I was hopeing that one of the members here might have worked on the project and had first hand information.(instead of 10 th hand info,whith a bit of chinese wispers added in)
I remember going to a site where it said the ADF was close to signing a contract with Dragonskin for 3000 units<<<this ended up beieng wrong!
Capt.Picard that is why i ask the members for there insight into the body armour ,as there may have been someone who worked on it in this forum.
Im no defense analyst <<<<<<<but there are a number here who are, and they have the right insight and information on and topic.This is the main reason why i ask the forum as i believe they have the answers for my questions.
AND the internet is a good source of info,but it is not always right with the info it shows.All i am saying is that i would take the word of a professional defence analyst over a company website trying to flog there product
MEEP MEEP
nfloorl:winnyfield
New Member
http://digital.realviewtechnologies.com/default.asp?xml=defencenews_army.xml&iid=7461
I imagine the only people that are going to be wearing the full system would be politicians touring a combat zone somewhere. Can't wait
I imagine the only people that are going to be wearing the full system would be politicians touring a combat zone somewhere. Can't wait
If a Digger is only carrying a 20kg backpack he's got off EXTREMELY lightly.
Either that or he's an officer. :laugh
I really don't see the full kit being worn very often at all. The current stuff is restrictive enough. At some point you have to consider that the extra weight and hindrance to movement is going to threaten your soldiers more than it is going to protect them.
Yeah, webbing and pack with water, food, ammo, radio batts etc used to weigh in at a fraction over 30kg's, then add weapon. This was the days before body armour too
hwellThe greatest and best ultimate idea on this thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Just keep the damn thing and look after it well for some more decades.
Or if the Australian Forces love the AUG but want to replace a bullpup, They can always go for this
http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/2396/frontmagaugad8.jpg
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
On re-training what intensive training would be required for a new rifle, 2 days a week? Does anyone know the conversion time in the 4rar from the Steyr to the M-4?
Obviously I am not talking on developing expertise merely operation use.
Good to see my thread is still alive and kicking, Its been a while so I'll speak my mind haha, Steyr Is great now and into the future, especially the Austrian Spec Ops variant or the Steyr A3 version, I'm sure the Australian A3/A4 version works just as well but Its but ugly haha, only other reccomendations I would make is modify it to take stanag magazines like the new A3 comes optional with.
Probably take a few months considering all the other stuff that goes with a new weapon. Slings, weapon mounts in vehicles, firing positions (if different from current weapon), the writing of new pams etc. I know at sunny camp K that spend about two weeks teaching the weapons. There are other things you do at the same time so probably about uhmmm, say, a week solid on one weapon to be proficient on it.
Remember you have to break a soldiers habits he/she has with the old weapon and rebuild habits with the new weapon. Sometimes can take some time as a lot of the drills become second nature.
I have a heard from one of my instructors that Stanmags have trouble double feeding a lot (Aussie Dig have you heard of this prob with them?) but, I think this could have been an old prob that has been fixed since as I can't see CMDO or SASR using anything that wouldn't work first time every time.
Besides its still nice to look at your F88 mag and have a pretty good idea of how many rounds you have left in the thing (granted you should have a good idea anyway but hey).
I guess the only real probs I myself have with the F88 as I said before is the lines in the sight, although not a big prob is that they don't need to be so damn thick. The other more more serious prob with the F88 is that it CAN'T be submersed in water and then pulled out and fired as can the M16/M4 variants, MP5 etc. We invented the owen gun because of this very problem. Then we adopted the M16 during Malaya/Nam because hey there sure as hell a lot of water/rain and sloppy mud in a jungle, and now we go back to a rifle design that can't do the things that the previous rifles could. Don't get me wrong the F88 is good in a lot of other ways but, as I said above it really doesn't like water.