RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Thanks old faithful, I was hoping you would pop in and contribute, its interesting to hear the opinion from someone who has spent time in the 3rd. Are you opposed to the removal of the Para capability from the Battalion?
Old Faithful good to see the Airborne spirit is alive and well at 3RAR.
When you signed up at the recruiting office for infantry did you specify 3RAR, or are you posted? Did they make you go through a pre-Parachute selection course to determine suitability? The reason I ask is when I did P Company back in 87, they hammered home the argument that the tests where there to ascertain suitability rather than simply provide a sadistic outlet to the depot instructors. Their reasoning being:
Airborne units (Para role) are expected to jump behind enemy-lines and survive against the odds until the air/land-bridge is established;
They need soldiers who are highly motivated, strong willed and naturally aggressive - you are expected to fight against superior numbers and firepower;
Para's must carry more (ammunition, weapons etc.) and still move at a faster pace than their infantry counterparts, The assumption being you could be dropped anything from 10-20 miles (worst case scenario) from your objective and have to tab (run-walk) at speed before the enemy consolidated and counter attacked.
Jeremy Clarksons (Top Gear fame) father-in-law won a VC at Arnhem with the Airborne Forces, he destroyed five panzers, including a Tiger.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Amongst my vices are playing tabletop strategy games, and after taking a look at a new one, I am looking for a little help with some questions about some pieces of Army kit and Army units. The units themselves are organized in Battalion level OrBats.
Within the Mechanized Infantry Battalions, there are units of Land Rovers armed with 106 mm Recoiless Rifles. Do these units in fact exist, and if so, are these Land Rover Defender 110's or some other model Land Rover?
Within the Light & Motorized Infantry Battalion OrBats, there are two units called DFS Weapons Teams. The units themselves appear to be approximately platoon-sized units and have (for infantry) rather long-ranged weaponry. What I am curious about is whether the Light Infantry have units of snipers/designated marksman, and if so what the unit(s) are called. Also Light Infantry appear to have a number of Land Rovers assigned, but again no mention of what type/model Land Rover, and it would be helpful to know that as well.
The Cavalry units are of course equipped with the ASLAV, but if memory serves, there are three different versions of the ASLAV in Army service. What I am looking for is some help as to which three LAV models are in Australian service. I believe one model is essential the Canadian Bison APC, armed with either an AGL or 7.62 mm MG. Another version is the LAV-25, armed with a turreted 25mm Bushmaster cannon. The third version might be the LAV III, which has an updated turret for the Bushmaster, but I am uncertain. If anyone could confirm/correct which versions of LAV are in service and whether the armaments are correct, it would be appreciated.
An option for a Light AA Battery is a towed Rapier SAM unit. I was under the impression that Rapier had been withdrawn from the ADF, is this correct?
There is an entry for a vehicle called the LRPV equipping the SAS, is this the Perentie 6x6?
There is an entry for something called an M113 MRV, which is listed as being armed with a 76 mm/28 gun or Recoilless Rifle of UK manufacture. Unfortunately I have not been able to find any reference to it in the ADF. Is there such a vehicle in service with Army, and if so, how are they distributed? (i.e. 1 per coy, a platoon per battalion, etc...)
EDIT: I recall reading somewhere that an M113 had been modding into a Fire Support Vehicle by mounting the turret from a FV101 Scorpion, however I had been under the impression that this was a 'one-off' variant, and not something which was deployed in any numbers, and I had also thought this had been withdrawn from service.
Lastly, there are also listings for Light Trucks and Medium Trucks assigned to various units for transport duties. Any comments on what is the typical 'make' vehicle for Light and/or Medium trucks in Army?
I realise there are a fair number of questions here, but since the Army site does not give a real breakdown of what the OrBat is, or what kit Army uses, I have had to look elsewhere and I trust wiki about as far as I can throw if for things this specific.
Again, any information or guidance to where I can research this myself, would be appreciated.
-Cheers
Within the Mechanized Infantry Battalions, there are units of Land Rovers armed with 106 mm Recoiless Rifles. Do these units in fact exist, and if so, are these Land Rover Defender 110's or some other model Land Rover?
Within the Light & Motorized Infantry Battalion OrBats, there are two units called DFS Weapons Teams. The units themselves appear to be approximately platoon-sized units and have (for infantry) rather long-ranged weaponry. What I am curious about is whether the Light Infantry have units of snipers/designated marksman, and if so what the unit(s) are called. Also Light Infantry appear to have a number of Land Rovers assigned, but again no mention of what type/model Land Rover, and it would be helpful to know that as well.
The Cavalry units are of course equipped with the ASLAV, but if memory serves, there are three different versions of the ASLAV in Army service. What I am looking for is some help as to which three LAV models are in Australian service. I believe one model is essential the Canadian Bison APC, armed with either an AGL or 7.62 mm MG. Another version is the LAV-25, armed with a turreted 25mm Bushmaster cannon. The third version might be the LAV III, which has an updated turret for the Bushmaster, but I am uncertain. If anyone could confirm/correct which versions of LAV are in service and whether the armaments are correct, it would be appreciated.
An option for a Light AA Battery is a towed Rapier SAM unit. I was under the impression that Rapier had been withdrawn from the ADF, is this correct?
There is an entry for a vehicle called the LRPV equipping the SAS, is this the Perentie 6x6?
There is an entry for something called an M113 MRV, which is listed as being armed with a 76 mm/28 gun or Recoilless Rifle of UK manufacture. Unfortunately I have not been able to find any reference to it in the ADF. Is there such a vehicle in service with Army, and if so, how are they distributed? (i.e. 1 per coy, a platoon per battalion, etc...)
EDIT: I recall reading somewhere that an M113 had been modding into a Fire Support Vehicle by mounting the turret from a FV101 Scorpion, however I had been under the impression that this was a 'one-off' variant, and not something which was deployed in any numbers, and I had also thought this had been withdrawn from service.
Lastly, there are also listings for Light Trucks and Medium Trucks assigned to various units for transport duties. Any comments on what is the typical 'make' vehicle for Light and/or Medium trucks in Army?
I realise there are a fair number of questions here, but since the Army site does not give a real breakdown of what the OrBat is, or what kit Army uses, I have had to look elsewhere and I trust wiki about as far as I can throw if for things this specific.
Again, any information or guidance to where I can research this myself, would be appreciated.
-Cheers
Last edited:
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Rapier is long gone. Air defense is currently restricted to the RBS-70 MANPAD.
LRPV is the Perentie 6x6, fairly sure it also (or used to) equip the Reserve units previously equiped with the M113 (except a squadron of the HRL which scored Bushmaster due to an influential local MP).
The MRV existed but was retired from service, same for the other M113 variant you were talking about (there is general info on wiki about both).
Thats about all I can help with.
LRPV is the Perentie 6x6, fairly sure it also (or used to) equip the Reserve units previously equiped with the M113 (except a squadron of the HRL which scored Bushmaster due to an influential local MP).
The MRV existed but was retired from service, same for the other M113 variant you were talking about (there is general info on wiki about both).
Thats about all I can help with.
There were two varients of the MRV one with a Saladin turret as used in Vietnam and a later version using the Scorpion turret. I believe they used to be issued two per CAV Troop supporting three APC/LRV. There used to be a distinction between the LRV and APC as well with the LRV having a .50 Cal and a .30Cal in its turret and the APC having a pair of .30 Cal. By the time I joined in the 1990s all APCs had been fitted with the .50/.30 Cal combo.
The Btns did used to use the 106mm RCL on landrovers while 5/7 RAR (Mech) did reintroduce the weapon for a short period mounting it in a pintle in the right side of an M-113 and fired from the cargo hatch.
The Btns did used to use the 106mm RCL on landrovers while 5/7 RAR (Mech) did reintroduce the weapon for a short period mounting it in a pintle in the right side of an M-113 and fired from the cargo hatch.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Okay, that is more or less what I had been thinking, that several of the oddities I was coming across were no longer in service. Funny that, since the game just came about ~a month ago, and the OrBats listed were projected current until 2015...
I will have to do a writeup for errata to have them update some of the OrBat.
-Cheers
I will have to do a writeup for errata to have them update some of the OrBat.
-Cheers
Each Australian Army full strength infantry battalion up until the mid 1990s had an anti tank platoon equipped with the M40 106mm (actually 105mm) recoilless rifles. These were mounted on special Series 2 Landrovers, they were never mounted on the Project Perentie (110) Landrovers. 5/7 RAR did experiment with an M113 mounted M40 but they didn’t last long as the weapon was withdrawn from service to save on ammunition acquisition. From 1985 Milan was acquired to replace the M40. But only 12 launchers and 120 rockets were acquiried. This was supposed to provide a trained force so if a war happened many more Milans would be purchased and replace all the recoilless guns.
In the 1990s with the withdrawal of the M40 the anti tank platoons were combined with the machine gun platoons to create Direct Fire Support Weapons (DFSW) Platoons. These platoons operated the MAG-58 7.62mm SFMG (on dial sight tripod) and 84mm Carl Gustav recoilless guns which before were allocated one to each platoon headquarters. During the mid to late 2000s the Javelin ATGM was added to the DFSW platoon alongside the SFMG and 84mm.
Light infantry battalions have lots of 4x4 and 6x6 Landrover 110s (Project Perentie) supplied but do not have one for each infantry section like the motorised infantry battalion. All of the above is currently being changed for the Infantry 2012 aka Modernised Infantry Battalion restructure.
There is no LAV III in Australian Army service. These vehicles have the same turret as the Gen III ASLAV-25 but a larger and improved hull. They are in service in the New Zealand Army as the NZLAV. There are three basic types of ASLAV vehicle: the type 1 with the 25mm gun turret. The type 2 which is similar to the Bison APC with the raised hull. And the type 3 without a turret or raised hull but with a crane and levellers for repair use. The type 1 ASLAV is known as the ASLAV-25 and are all now Gen III ASLAVs with the advanced turret systems. The type 2 ASLAVs are fitted with mission role installation kits (MRIK) to create ASLAV-PC APCs that are fitted with the Protector RCWS for 12.7mm HMG, command vehicle, ambulance and surveillance vehicle with sensor mast. The type 3s are fitted as recovery or fitter (repair) vehicles. All of the other ASLAVs are fitted with flex mount 12.7mm HMGs on the commander’s station, except the ambulance and some have MAG-58s (fitters).
Rapier was withdrawn a few years ago. There are now two batteries each with three troops. Each troop has a PSTAR man portable radar and five RBS-70 launchers. Each RBS-70 has a 6x6 Landrover with special module to carry the crew, launcher and spare missiles. They will be replaced by a similar special fit out Bushmaster PMV from the end of the current production run.
The FSV and MRV are different vehicles. The FSV was developed for use in VietNam by fitting the turrets of every (about 15) Army Saladin armoured car to the hulls of M113. Their role was defence of fire support bases to free up Centurion tanks for offensive action.
The MRV was developed in the 1970s by purchasing about 40 Scorpion turrets and fitting them to M113 hulls. The MRV was acquired in place of Sheridan or Scorpion light tanks to provide fire power to the armoured reconnaissance squadrons.
In the mid 1980s the Army’s truck fleet was modernised with Unimog 4x4s and Mack 6x6 trucks. These are now due to be replaced by project LAND 121.
Anzac Steel is a good reference: Anzac Steel - A Reference Site for the Military Vehicles of Australian, New Zealand and the British Commonwealth
Of course nothing beats ‘being there’ as that is where the info for this post comes from.
no, not really opposed. I trust the higher ranks of both NCO,s and commissioned officers. They dont ussually promote idots above SGT or Major.(there are some exceptions).
What i mean is that the gens advise the pollies what capabillities we have and need, and the desicion comes from people at a much higher level than the CO of a Btn. I nearly fell off the couch when I read somewhere here, that the CO must choose para rrole or deployment! Get real, CO,s do as they are told! I think it would be handy to keep a para Bn, maybe dont do as much continuation training (we jumped way to much) and many many $ will be saved. to use an SF asset to secure a POE is a waste, and it would be unrealistic to think that 2CDO could be deployed at regt level, where the whole of 3RAR could be deployed. However, given recent history, do we NEED that capability any more?
t68
Well-Known Member
2nd line transport or whatever it is called now 1990/1998.
Land rover 4x4 GS plus ¼ ton trailer
Mercedes Benz 4x4 with or without crane plus P1 trailer (if needed)
Mack 6x6 with or without crane plus P2 plant trailer (if needed)
REAME attached
Land rover 6x6
F1 international 6x6 twin boom until retired
Mack 6x6 wrecker
If memory serves me correctly Mercedes Benz (medium) 6 ton on road 4 tonne off-road with a 12 tonne bridge classification, P1 6 tonne payload. Mack (heavy) 12tonne on road, 8 tonne off-road with a 22 tonne bridge classification, P2 20 tonne payload.
A squadron had 2 Troops Alpha/ Bravo, Alpha the training troop, Bravo the operational troop with 2 medium lift sections and 2 heavy lift sections of 5 trucks each with attached RAEME support.Also some section commanders and troop sergeants rode Yamaha (i think) trail bikes to maintain control of a convoy move’s.
1st line transport (unit) land rover 4x4/6x6
2nd line transport (squadron) Mercedes/Mack
3rd line transport (squadron) international S line (semi trailer) later some Mack’s
4th line transport civilian transport
In DOA training 4th line transport brought stores to military depots, 3rd line transport moves stores from depots to replenishment park’s,2nd line transport moves stores from replenishment park’s to distribution points in the bush,1st line moves stores from distribution point to user units.
In an interesting take on the difference in training at the time from Ares to ARA, talking to ex ARA who i worked with who got out that he did not do any training in distribution points, their appeared to be a lot of difference in training regimes between reserves and regulars at the time.
t68
Well-Known Member
Interesting defence is considering joining in a partnership with the US Army in the next ground combat vehicle for land 400.And Northrop Grumman has joined with BAE working on JLTV.
Interesting times for army to see what way the government jumps, if we join as a partner as we have with the F35A i guess that rules out the other AFV under consideration.
ADM: Will Land 400 merge with US GCV program?
DoD Buzz | Report: Aussies eyeing U.S. GCV
U.S. Army Defines Ground Combat Vehicles (GCV) Priorities
ADM: NORGRUM joins BAE Systems' JLTV team
What little info there is out there on the program GCV be capable off being moved by C17 but will be too large for C130, also for A400M by the looks of it as well.
Interesting times for army to see what way the government jumps, if we join as a partner as we have with the F35A i guess that rules out the other AFV under consideration.
ADM: Will Land 400 merge with US GCV program?
DoD Buzz | Report: Aussies eyeing U.S. GCV
U.S. Army Defines Ground Combat Vehicles (GCV) Priorities
ADM: NORGRUM joins BAE Systems' JLTV team
What little info there is out there on the program GCV be capable off being moved by C17 but will be too large for C130, also for A400M by the looks of it as well.
Last edited:
Nice to know were looking at moving away from a lighter army to something that can pack a nice punch.
Btw, as I see it we are currently funding 9 of the 30 JLTV prototypes (according to Wikipedia :frown ). How does this affect land 121? I thought we were going with either the Hawkei, Eagle or Ocelot. (if so then what's the point of helping fund the JLTV) Could someone just clear this up?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
We funded JLTV first. Army wasn't interested in anything else. Local Industry primes realised they were missing out on "pie" and jumped up and down and screamed about how unfair it was that Army didn't want any of the vehicles that they didn't at that point have, and that "foreign" manufacturers were getting developmental funding and they weren't...
So the Australian Government caved and funded a bunch of "local" manufacturers like Thales (French), Force Protection (British) and General Dynamics Land Systems (US) to develop and test suitable vehicles as well...
Now we've got a plethora of vehicles to choose from, have to test them all and choose a winner. I imagine this process after many $tens of extra millions and many more financial years taken to actually select a reasonable vehicle, but not necessarily the best, let alone the vehicle Army actually wants...
With all the carry on in the US moving goal posts on the JLVT something proven like the Eagle could be the safest, cheapest and best way to go. (forgot to mention sexiest)
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Could be. Therefore we'll probably not choose it. Much better to take the riskier option that costs far more, takes years longer to deliver and in the end delivers far less...
like MRH-90 and Tiger?Could be. Therefore we'll probably not choose it. Much better to take the riskier option that costs far more, takes years longer to deliver and in the end delivers far less...
speaking of, any updates on if the kinks with the MRH-90s have been sorted out? have the floors and ramps been reinforced so they can actualy do the job they were bought for?
Last I heard, I think it was on ADM or defencealert, one of those websites anyway... the review had been completed and the review pretty much took them off the projects of concern list and listed a bunch of ways to fix the current problems.like MRH-90 and Tiger?
speaking of, any updates on if the kinks with the MRH-90s have been sorted out? have the floors and ramps been reinforced so they can actualy do the job they were bought for?
... some good news
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The Government has decided not to add these projects to the "projects of concern list" and instead work "closer" with the manufacturer to resolve the issues.like MRH-90 and Tiger?
speaking of, any updates on if the kinks with the MRH-90s have been sorted out? have the floors and ramps been reinforced so they can actualy do the job they were bought for?
I guess when nearly every project is just about on the "projects of concern" list, it starts to become a bit of a farcical situation...
I do wonder how many projects will make it onto that list before it starts sinking in through the machiavellian obfustication, which only a massive and self-serving bureaucracy is truly capable of, that whacking the moles as they pop up may not be the best way to ensure that the moles aren't popping up in the first place?
:smash
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Ask Aus Aviation. They promise that they can just build it and deliver it. Except they've demonstrated that theyt can't. They don't control the production facilities in France, have little or no control over production slots, no control over production of spare parts and so on.
That's the benefit of what our "local production" gives us...