Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

That's backwards - Plan Beersheba is feeding the Land 400 requirement, not the other way around. Unit orbats still haven't been signed off, only the brigade orbats. Either way, what's signed off now will have very limited effect on what actually happens.

Beersheba has been feed by assumptions about LAND 400 vehicle specifications, like three man crews, eight dismounts and eight vehicles per troop. You can’t get an establishment for the ACR of 631 without assuming there will be 72 IFVs with 216 AFV crewmen in the nine cav tps.

Cavalry troops will have more than just crewmen - they will also have integral dismounts (ie, scouts). Any planning as to manning needs to include this. Otherwise, who is manning all these fancy surveillance suites, UAVs, GSR, UGVs etc that are supposed to be part of the CAFS? The troop structure, or the manpower, still hasn't been signed off by anyone.

Yeah I was only referring to the AFV crewmen. The whole issue being about with the MRMB structure being signed off then the ACR is locked in at 631 establishment which is predicated on nine cav tps, 72 IFVs and 216 AFV crewmen. Now like everything that ‘locked in’ will always be subject to change but any increase in the establishment of the ACR will have to come from somewhere else in the MRMB unless you can make a case to the CA to add additional soldiers to the MRMB form the rest of the Army or the MINDEF for additional Army personnel funding. So if you want to build a battalion level lift capability with presumably bigger lift troops then the additional crewman will have to come from within the ACR.

 

[Raven22]

Beersheba has been feed by assumptions about LAND 400 vehicle specifications, like three man crews, eight dismounts and eight vehicles per troop. You can’t get an establishment for the ACR of 631 without assuming there will be 72 IFVs with 216 AFV crewmen in the nine cav tps.

Plan Beersheba takes its proposed/possible orbats from the various force modernisation reviews and the AOF 2030 document. The Land400 vehicle requirements fall out of what the FMRs decide is necessary. As the combat FMR and Plan Beersheba are refined, the Land 400 requirement will change. As such, what is currently written in the user requirement document was only the current thinking in March. A lot of the assumptions made within it have already been changed.

Anyway, your assumption about 8 vehicle troops is wrong. The proposed orbat of the 8 vehicle troop comes from a CDG document, and isn't just 8 IFVs. The proposed troop includes two 3-vehicle patrols, each with one 'IFV' (3 crew) and two 'PMVs' (2 crew), with a two vehicle HQ mounted in PMVs (2 crew each). That makes 18 crewmen for the 8 vehicles. In addition, each patrol has a six man dismounted element, to give a total troop size of 30 pers.

I'd be willing to bet my left nut that this isn't the troop orbat when the ACR is formed though, as it is stupid. So very, very stupid. Thanks CDG.

Yeah I was only referring to the AFV crewmen. The whole issue being about with the MRMB structure being signed off then the ACR is locked in at 631 establishment which is predicated on nine cav tps, 72 IFVs and 216 AFV crewmen. Now like everything that ‘locked in’ will always be subject to change but any increase in the establishment of the ACR will have to come from somewhere else in the MRMB unless you can make a case to the CA to add additional soldiers to the MRMB form the rest of the Army or the MINDEF for additional Army personnel funding. So if you want to build a battalion level lift capability with presumably bigger lift troops then the additional crewman will have to come from within the ACR.

But the personnel required for the lift squadrons already exists within the 631 pers. The ~1900 soldiers across the 3 ACRs is about 200-300 more soldiers than exist (on paper) now. That is about the number of extra dudes you would need to add two more B Sqn-sized lift organisations to the total.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Anyway, your assumption about 8 vehicle troops is wrong. The proposed orbat of the 8 vehicle troop comes from a CDG document, and isn't just 8 IFVs. The proposed troop includes two 3-vehicle patrols, each with one 'IFV' (3 crew) and two 'PMVs' (2 crew), with a two vehicle HQ mounted in PMVs (2 crew each). That makes 18 crewmen for the 8 vehicles. In addition, each patrol has a six man dismounted element, to give a total troop size of 30 pers.

I’m just working from the documents as published. The referenced to the eight vehicle troop comes from the published Army User Requirement. While the troop sounds ridiculous organised as such it may not be so bad because CDG have used PMV terminology to refer to an APC version of the IFV (same hull but without the two man turret). Either way nine troops of that is no where near as sensible as six ISR troops on the ASLAV structure and three lift troops on the B Sqn structure.

Now on a tangential point the Beersheba plan has an orphan in the form of the 7th infantry battalion and the amphibious medium weight battle group as the land force of the amphibious ready group. As discussed previously the Army is considering three options to generate this force: a specialist battlegroup, a specialist brigade with the battlegroup rotating between its units, or rotation across all 10 army battlegroups. But I was thinking looking at what the ARG needs, LAND 400 and Beersheba that maybe there is a fourth way. And this way from combine elements of option one and three to provide cross army rotation and specialist capability generation.

Looking at last public land force concept of employment (june 2009, so no doubt very out of date) it as a requirement for a BG HQ, four inf coy, tank tp, two lift tp, engr sqn (-), arty bty with SP155 tp, LW155 tp, GBAD tp, STA tp and CSS coy. It isn’t quite a standard battlegroup one would create from the Beersheba multi role manoeuvre brigade. Also some of the elements, in particular the armd, arty and engr capabilities are going to require specialist systems (or at least modification) and training to meet their amphibious role. For example with LAND 400 having an IOC in 2022 this could enable the two amphib lift troops to be equipped with the USMC’s new amphibious combat vehicle and certainly the tanks and any convetional IFV/APC would need additional training in beach crossing from LCM drop disembarkment. Same for arty SPGs and JFTs with training in NGS and engr in beach crossing/breaching. Likewise for CSS which can include some of the dedicated amphib capabilities of 10 FSB.

So why not make the BG HQ and sub-units from RAAC, RAA and RAE dedicated to the amphibious role and rotate in the inf coys from the rest of the Army. The ARG LF could be located at one of the three Army brigade HQ locations and those infantry battalions located elsewhere raise a fourth company from which they would rotate one to the ARG’s LF. For example if the ARG LF was based in Townsville then 5, 6, 7 and 8/9 RAR would all have four companies one of which would be serving a 12 month stint in Townsville.

As to the subsequent problem without rotation for force generation in the dedicated amphib BG HQ and sub-units from RAAC, RAA and RAE it is less than may seem. These capabilities are specific to amphibious lodgement so are unlikely to be needed operationally beyond a single deployment period. After a successful amphibious landing they would be replaced in deployment by conventional capabilities from the rest of the Army. They could be overmanned (four soldiers for every three positions) so as to ensure retention of full capability while allowing some leeway for reconstitution.

Such an organisation allows for the whole RAInf to share the burden of amphibious operations and those corps with more exacting amphibious capability requirements to concentrate on specialist skills and equipment development. It’s certainly not perfect with issues like accommodating families for one year out of town deployments (not so bad if the ARG was based in Brisbane). But in a small army its not going to be easy finding a solution that fits.

 

[old faithful]

regarding the 7th, orphan Bn, I hear that 8/9RAR will de-link in the near future, and that there is a chance of 4RAR re forming.....just saying.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Army Chinooks currently grounded

Aussie Chinooks grounded | Australian Aviation Magazine

Hopefully a short lived glitch.

How different are ADF's CH-47D's WRT the flight control system, from the US's? There must be some difference with the US ones or they would be thusly affected as well (they haven't moved to from all D's to F's yet)?

I hadn't realised that there were only 5 left in ADF service.

Anyone know what the status is of the Canadian effort to sell their six CH-47D's?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

regarding the 7th, orphan Bn, I hear that 8/9RAR will de-link in the near future, and that there is a chance of 4RAR re forming.....just saying.

I very much doubt we will see a fourth brigade being formed. As to 4RAR and 9RAR being back on the orbat it is probable but as admin battalions for grouping support company capabilities from the other battalions. The sniper/recce community have been pushing for their platoons to be grouped together into a recce bn, RAR for ease of training and skills development. RAInf recce pltns and sniper cells will then be doled out to battle groups and combat teams as per need. Mortars have made similar claims. So a 4RAR (Recce) and a 9RAR (Mortar) are possibilities.

Thinking further about the amphib battle group and I don't see why it should be part of the wider force generation cycle. You only have a FGC because of the need to sustain operational deployments. But you don't sustain amphibious forces. They are an entry force and once they have done their business they are replaced by a sustained conventional force. Further the amphib battle group has its own internal FGC raising combat team sized amphib ready elements for at sea deployments.

The argument to have them in the wider Forces Comd FGC is to share the burden of operational deployments. But with the burden of ARE at sea deployments and the army career posting cycle the amphib battle group will not be a sink hole for stay at homes. By having a dedicated amphib battle group outside of the multi role mnv bdes and the wider FGC can enable a tailored force, highly trained in amphib operations, sustaining the ARE FGC and ready for battle group level mobilisation and deployment.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

How different are ADF's CH-47D's WRT the flight control system, from the US's? There must be some difference with the US ones or they would be thusly affected as well (they haven't moved to from all D's to F's yet)?

The FCS is exactly the same. The political risk tolerances are different.

 

[Kirkzzy]

I hadn't realised that there were only 5 left in ADF service.

One crashed in Afghanistan earlier this year.

I very much doubt we will see a fourth brigade being formed. As to 4RAR and 9RAR being back on the orbat it is probable but as admin battalions for grouping support company capabilities from the other battalions. The sniper/recce community have been pushing for their platoons to be grouped together into a recce bn, RAR for ease of training and skills development. RAInf recce pltns and sniper cells will then be doled out to battle groups and combat teams as per need. Mortars have made similar claims. So a 4RAR (Recce) and a 9RAR (Mortar) are possibilities.

Wouldn't it be easier to put all the support companies in each brigade into a single battalion (instead of concentrating them to single Recce and Mortar battalions that may only train with specific brigades), so you could have the third battalion in each brigade (the 7th btn that is left over, assuming it is 3RAR at the moment, plus 4RAR and 9RAR) as the support battalion, with its own mortar company, recce company and any other skill they may require. (although there is merit in putting all the snipers/mortar platoons in one battalion to train together. Its just will the troops be able to train with them if only one brigade had access to the snipers and only one to the mortars and so on...)

Thinking further about the amphib battle group and I don't see why it should be part of the wider force generation cycle. You only have a FGC because of the need to sustain operational deployments. But you don't sustain amphibious forces. They are an entry force and once they have done their business they are replaced by a sustained conventional force. Further the amphib battle group has its own internal FGC raising combat team sized amphib ready elements for at sea deployments.

How about alternatively having the third "leftover" battalion as a rapid reaction battalion? That specialises in amphibious operations and other fast insertion methods?

The argument to have them in the wider Forces Comd FGC is to share the burden of operational deployments. But with the burden of ARE at sea deployments and the army career posting cycle the amphib battle group will not be a sink hole for stay at homes. By having a dedicated amphib battle group outside of the multi role mnv bdes and the wider FGC can enable a tailored force, highly trained in amphib operations, sustaining the ARE FGC and ready for battle group level mobilisation and deployment.

Like a (the dreaded word) "marine" style force?

 

[Para 3]

Wouldn't it be easier to put all the support companies in each brigade into a single battalion (instead of concentrating them to single Recce and Mortar battalions that may only train with specific brigades), so you could have the third battalion in each brigade (the 7th btn that is left over, assuming it is 3RAR at the moment, plus 4RAR and 9RAR) as the support battalion, with its own mortar company, recce company and any other skill they may require. (although there is merit in putting all the snipers/mortar platoons in one battalion to train together. Its just will the troops be able to train with them if only one brigade had access to the snipers and only one to the mortars and so on...)

It impacts heavily on the cross training of your soldiers. CO's of battalions have the ability to send personnel wherever they want (For career progression and other reasons) up to the rank of Corporal. Having all your eggs in one basket will not allow for this to occur. (Plus who would have a Battalion of mortarmen to look after....*shudders*) The ability to promote or recognise by sending to a specialist trade (Mortars, Signallers, Recon, Heavy Weapons) allows for motivation for the troops to aim for something.
With pure rifleman trades in one Battalion does not allow for this recognition.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Wouldn't it be easier to put all the support companies in each brigade into a single battalion (instead of concentrating them to single Recce and Mortar battalions that may only train with specific brigades), so you could have the third battalion in each brigade (the 7th btn that is left over, assuming it is 3RAR at the moment, plus 4RAR and 9RAR) as the support battalion, with its own mortar company, recce company and any other skill they may require. (although there is merit in putting all the snipers/mortar platoons in one battalion to train together. Its just will the troops be able to train with them if only one brigade had access to the snipers and only one to the mortars and so on...)

No that defeats the purpose and just creates additional battalions for little reason. The recce/sniper and mortar pltns want their own battalion so they can improve their training and then use the combat teaming approach to be allocated by need to battle groups. The DFSW pltns aren’t calling for centralisation as with manoeuvre support sections in each infantry platoon they have a solid grounding of skills in each battalion. There will be no isolation from the rest of the army as forces come together for exercises. Really it’s just turning on head the current arrangement where these platoons concentrate every year for specialist training and then spend the rest of the year with their parent infantry battalions. Obviously the people in these platoons have identified that it would be much better for them and everyone else for them to be concentrated most of the time and only doled out to the infantry battalions (and other units forming battle groups and combat teams) for exercises and deployments.

How about alternatively having the third "leftover" battalion as a rapid reaction battalion? That specialises in amphibious operations and other fast insertion methods?

What other fast insertion methods? It isn’t the SAS or Commandos it’s a medium weight battle group trained, organised and allocated to amphibious warfare.

Like a (the dreaded word) "marine" style force?

No one dreads the word marine in the Army, the US Marines are the no. 1 training partner of the Australian Army. But only outsiders keep referring to the formation of an Australian Marines. It is beyond ridiculous for anyone with any familiarity with the real army.

Having the 10th battle group (ie leftover battalion) dedicated to the amphibious role is one of three options Army is investigating. Above I tried to think about a fourth but just talked myself into this first option. It won’t be a rapid reaction battalion or a marine battalion

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It impacts heavily on the cross training of your soldiers. CO's of battalions have the ability to send personnel wherever they want (For career progression and other reasons) up to the rank of Corporal. Having all your eggs in one basket will not allow for this to occur. (Plus who would have a Battalion of mortarmen to look after....*shudders*) The ability to promote or recognise by sending to a specialist trade (Mortars, Signallers, Recon, Heavy Weapons) allows for motivation for the troops to aim for something.
With pure rifleman trades in one Battalion does not allow for this recognition.

I’m not out there advocating this change rather commenting that it has a fair bit of support in the army. As to career progression and recognition I think the people in these platoons think that having their own battalion will enhance that. So they can set a standard and it can be something soldiers can aspire to. Not quite selection to the SAS but something above being a regular grunt. As to the plain vanilla infantry battalions stripped of their recce and mortar pltns there is a lot of trade intensity in the new platoon structure with DFSW and assault pioneer roles that out to keep the grunts working away to achieve.

Also another issue is with the battle grouping structure there is actually a strong shortage of sniper and mortar elements in the orbat. With seven infantry battalions is their enough snipers and mortars to provide 10 battle groups? Mortars is less of a drama as the ARES fd arty units should be able to supply plenty. With a recce bn, RAR they will be able to grow the sniper strength to 10 cells to support every battle group.

 

[Para 3]

Also another issue is with the battle grouping structure there is actually a strong shortage of sniper and mortar elements in the orbat. With seven infantry battalions is their enough snipers and mortars to provide 10 battle groups? Mortars is less of a drama as the ARES fd arty units should be able to supply plenty. With a recce bn, RAR they will be able to grow the sniper strength to 10 cells to support every battle group.

Once the asset is lost from the battalion - you will never get it back. For a Battalion CO to get his fire support (Mortars) or recce support - he has to go to Brigade. Assets are only placed into support of a unit for the time frame of the activity and then pulled.
The idea of a mortar Battalion loses ground when we discuss mobile battle groups. The 5 k range is useless in this situation. (Unless we go to 120 mm). And to add the Arty types will try to have the the mortars rebadged and under direct command.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Once the asset is lost from the battalion - you will never get it back. For a Battalion CO to get his fire support (Mortars) or recce support - he has to go to Brigade. Assets are only placed into support of a unit for the time frame of the activity and then pulled. .

I think you've seriously missed the point. The RAInf proposals for a recce and mortar bn that I mentioned above are very differnt to Kirk's contribution. They won't be bde battalions but rather indept (probably under 6 CS Bde) admin focused bn HQs. No ops officer, no operational role. Just a training and admin role. When a battle group or indpt combat team is formed in the force generation cycle it will be allocated recce, sniper and mortar assets as per need. They will then be under the RHQ/BHQ until the end of the deployment.

 

[Raven22]

regarding the 7th, orphan Bn, I hear that 8/9RAR will de-link in the near future, and that there is a chance of 4RAR re forming.....just saying.

That's not happening, and in fact without a decision by government it can't happen. The white paper says the army is to consist of 3 brigades and 10 battlegroups. Therefore raising two extra battalions would be going against this. I can't see the goverment changing this any time soon.

The sniper/recce community have been pushing for their platoons to be grouped together into a recce bn, RAR for ease of training and skills development. RAInf recce pltns and sniper cells will then be doled out to battle groups and combat teams as per need. Mortars have made similar claims. So a 4RAR (Recce) and a 9RAR (Mortar) are possibilities.

While there may be some merit in that, it is not going to happen either. While this may make the maintenance of the capability easier, it completely goes against the purpose of Plan Beersheba, which is to have all the components of the combined arms team within each brigade, to allow collective training. If you take the recce/snipers and mortars out of the brigades, you have the same problem with collective training you have now with things like tanks.

Moreover, about the dumbest thing the infantry could do is argue that mortars should be taken out of the battalions. If this were to occur, the infantry could say goodbye to mortars. The obvious best people to maintain the mortar capability is the artillery. If there is no need for the mortars in the battalion then there is no need for the mortars to be manned by infantry. Just raise a mortar 'battery' in each arty regiment in each brigade.

Also another issue is with the battle grouping structure there is actually a strong shortage of sniper and mortar elements in the orbat. With seven infantry battalions is their enough snipers and mortars to provide 10 battle groups? Mortars is less of a drama as the ARES fd arty units should be able to supply plenty. With a recce bn, RAR they will be able to grow the sniper strength to 10 cells to support every battle group.

You could argue there is a shortage of mortars, but there is certainly no shortage of recon for the ten battlegroups. How useful do you think the traditional light infantry recce units are to a mounted battlegroup? When you've got cavalry conducting screens etc over a frontage of tens of kilometres, moving hundreds of kilometres a day, light infantry recce aren't all that useful. The integral cavalry recon scouts conduct this job. More snipers are certainly handy, as they are excellent soldiers, but for any sort of mobile, mechanised warfare (ie, what the mounted battegroups are there to conduct) they are a waste of talent.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That's not happening, and in fact without a decision by government it can't happen. The white paper says the army is to consist of 3 brigades and 10 battlegroups. Therefore raising two extra battalions would be going against this. I can't see the goverment changing this any time soon.

Yeah I agree. Even before Plan Beersheba the Recce Bn and Mortar Bn ideas had been aired but not gained much traction. But if people are chatting away expecting both 4RAR to be re-raised and 8/9 delinked this is really the only option. Either that or just some existing unit being renamed. Which with the naming of the Butterworth admin office after 2/30 Inf Bn has reached new levels of hilarity so anything is possible.

You could argue there is a shortage of mortars, but there is certainly no shortage of recon for the ten battlegroups. How useful do you think the traditional light infantry recce units are to a mounted battlegroup? When you've got cavalry conducting screens etc over a frontage of tens of kilometres, moving hundreds of kilometres a day, light infantry recce aren't all that useful. The integral cavalry recon scouts conduct this job. More snipers are certainly handy, as they are excellent soldiers, but for any sort of mobile, mechanised warfare (ie, what the mounted battegroups are there to conduct) they are a waste of talent.

Never said a shortage of recce… and in some battalions like 6RAR the recce pltn resembles a lt cav tp with a bunch of cut down Landrovers. There are plenty mortar tubes (4x4x81mm per bde + ARES) just not enough HQs. Be interesting to see what happens with the M125s now that sometime soon 5 and 7RARs will lose their M113s. 21 M125AS4s are scheduled to be delivered to the Army. More than enough for a troop of four per ACR?

 

[old faithful]

Yeah I agree. Even before Plan Beersheba the Recce Bn and Mortar Bn ideas had been aired but not gained much traction. But if people are chatting away expecting both 4RAR to be re-raised and 8/9 delinked this is really the only option. Either that or just some existing unit being renamed. Which with the naming of the Butterworth admin office after 2/30 Inf Bn has reached new levels of hilarity so anything is possible.



Never said a shortage of recce… and in some battalions like 6RAR the recce pltn resembles a lt cav tp with a bunch of cut down Landrovers. There are plenty mortar tubes (4x4x81mm per bde + ARES) just not enough HQs. Be interesting to see what happens with the M125s now that sometime soon 5 and 7RARs will lose their M113s. 21 M125AS4s are scheduled to be delivered to the Army. More than enough for a troop of four per ACR?

Raven,what corp are you?( Not related to this other question, just curious.)
Any reason that light infantry recon couldnt/wouldnt be deployed to recon an area perhaps thousands of KM,s away from the a mech force that may assault that area weeks from the recon deployment?

SAS could deploy for weeks ahead of 3RAR doing a variety of tasks from DZ recce to guideing PGM to targets prior to a para deployment etc etc. 3RAR recon pl also did exercises days/weeks before the main body of the Bn deployed to the AO. So I would hardly call it a waste of talent. Just because a mech bn is fast and mobile, it dosnt mean that their recon cant deploy by helo or any other means available to them.

 

[ADMk2]

Raven,what corp are you?( Not related to this other question, just curious).

Ironside...

 

[icelord]

Diggers turn to helmet cams to avoid military prosecution

DIGGERS are using their own money to buy miniature video cameras for helmets and weapons in a bid to avoid military prosecution for mishaps during firefights in Afghanistan.

The father of an army medic deployed in Afghanistan has revealed that the use of helmet cam has become routine.

But the army maintains it is being used as a training tool - not to escape prosecution over life and death decisions.

Earlier this year, manslaughter charges against commandos involved in an incident in which five children were killed in Afghanistan in 2009 were dropped. The soldiers had been under fire at the time.

Chris Campbell, an ex-serviceman whose son, Ben Campbell, 23, is an army medic, said he was "absolutely disgusted". Parents were also lending soldiers cash to pay for backpacks, boots and pants that were "falling apart".

"Most of these boys now have videocam so they can video what happens. They're covering their a*****, basically," he said. "I mean, how ridiculous. We're sending these boys to war. Ben doesn't complain, but I am disgusted."

Major General John Caligari, the head of defence modernisation and strategic planning, said video was being used to review performance but was not being used to "avoid prosecution".

"It's true to say they are carrying cameras and we are using them as debriefs after every patrol," he said. "We're using them as lessons but there's no culture in Afghanistan (of) people (being) petrified about being hauled up in front of courts martial. They are not taken for protecting themselves from the law.

"We intend to turn it all over to the National Archives as part of what we call a commanding officer's record or the battle records of the units."

Major General Caligari said he believed the videos "saved lives" as lessons learned were passed on to the next patrol.

The Defence Department has put a major effort into improving options for soldiers' kits, including the trial of a $192 boot allowance for the next deployment and the establishment of Diggerworks, which aims to apply the lessons of Afghanistan to improving boots, uniforms, body armour and equipment.

He said soldiers were given generous tax-free allowances and feedback indicated troops were happy with new kit improvements over the past 18 months.

Opposition defence spokesman David Johnston said he had been told by ADF chiefs that problems had been solved.

"(But) you'd have to ask why our troops (are putting their hands) in their pockets to buy the most basic of equipment such as backpacks, pouches and webbing," he said.

Read more: Diggers turn to helmet cams to avoid military prosecution | News.com.au

Something funny i find about this article. It says soldiers are asking family for money to pay for boots, camera etc...im gathering this is pre deployment as most troops can look at around $3000 a week tax free while in Afghanistan. Considering all aussie surplus suppliers provide free postage to AFPO, and are sending over 50% of their online sales to the MEAO, i find it hard to believe a soldier can cry poor when hes almost tripling his salary while away. These stories make it sound like they are getting shoddy equipment and HAVE to buy their own. As most ADF know, our gear is made by the lowest bidder, and generic for all personnel, So we buy our own gear for our own comfort. i know i use SWAT instead of issued RAN boots as they are more comfortable. Thats something im willing to do with my own money, as some soldiers are happy with issued gear and wear that. These stories really tend to be full of BS, it even says they dont complain about having to buy the cameras. The problem is not the purchase, its the fact you have to buy it to cover your arse that should be the problem highlighted!
The fact that the frontline guys need to defend them selves in court is the issue, hell guys would still buy these cameras for deployment videos to show back home of what they dealt with, a lot do it and it saves carrying the thing around if its mounted already.
Swing and a miss for the journo on this one

 

[Raven22]

Raven,what corp are you?( Not related to this other question, just curious.)
Any reason that light infantry recon couldnt/wouldnt be deployed to recon an area perhaps thousands of KM,s away from the a mech force that may assault that area weeks from the recon deployment?

SAS could deploy for weeks ahead of 3RAR doing a variety of tasks from DZ recce to guideing PGM to targets prior to a para deployment etc etc. 3RAR recon pl also did exercises days/weeks before the main body of the Bn deployed to the AO. So I would hardly call it a waste of talent. Just because a mech bn is fast and mobile, it dosnt mean that their recon cant deploy by helo or any other means available to them.

What you are talking about is advance force ops, which is the remit of special forces. There's no way that unit recon would be used at those ranges, or for those missions.

I wasn't talking so much about mech infantry, but cavalry and tanks (ie, the other three battlegroups). While a cavalry unit would find a use for infantry recon if it was provided to them, they are certainly not mandatory. Anything that can't move at the speed of the vehicles is a liability, and while you could easily mount the infantry recon in the vehicles, that would make the whole endeavor a bit pointless. There are already integral scouts for that job. Proper infantry recon are a waste of talent in that role. A tank unit would have zero need for dismounted infantry recon.

The whole point was - there is enough infantry recon for the ten battlegroups. Pure armoured units don't need it, and when battlegrouped the recon platoons are allocated as required the same as anything else. BTW, I'm armoured corps.

 

[StingrayOZ]

But isn't that the problem.

You don't get paid until you go, so you don't have the cash until your over there.

So borrow some cash (or use a credit card) and buy up big on webbing, clothing, sunglasses, PDA, cameras, shoes, cameras, cd radios, night vision, camelpacks etc and then easily be able to pay it back.