I’m not so sure I’m in favour of 120mm mortars. 81s are far more mobile and the ammo is much lighter which is good if you’re light infantry. Also the extra range of a 120 isn’t so important in an infantry battle. There aren’t going to be many platoons more than 4km away from their company HQ (that can have a mortar section attached) and so needing a longer range tube. PGM tech is devolving down to 81s now so the lighter mortar can provide precision fires. The weight of 120s is such that you pretty much need a truck to tow it and haul any kind of decent supply of bombs. So why not just use that truck to deploy an artillery system and get a lot more reach and bang.
Agree with Abe re mortars, I kind of like the idea of 120mm tubes for cav and maybe motorised inf, but as far as light infantry go, everything must be able to be man packed. Not every war will be like the middle east or Afghan, where its fairly open country most of the time, what east timor got hot? What if West Papua or PNG goes pear shaped? PBI need to have their own fire support, 81,s are a good flexible option,, that when combined with SFMG, gives small infantry units some indirect fire support that is dedicated to them, and under direct command of the parent unit.
Not every war is like Afghanistan, but we should base our future fire support needs on a Vietnam war style structure? Come on...Agree with Abe re mortars, I kind of like the idea of 120mm tubes for cav and maybe motorised inf, but as far as light infantry go, everything must be able to be man packed. Not every war will be like the middle east or Afghan, where its fairly open country most of the time, what east timor got hot? What if West Papua or PNG goes pear shaped? PBI need to have their own fire support, 81,s are a good flexible option,, that when combined with SFMG, gives small infantry units some indirect fire support that is dedicated to them, and under direct command of the parent unit.
It seems to me that with the strong push within RAINF for a lightweight mortar system (60mm "Commando" style mortar for arguments sake) we re already heading toward the solution that virtually every other Army in the world has adopted.
A light, portable mortar system for light infantry at the section, platoon and company levels and a heavier system for longer ranged fires at battalion / regiment level.
I don't think under that scenario that an 81mm provides enough bang for buck, given the range, firepower available to modern 60mm mortars like the South African 60mm Long Range Mortar.
Beat me to it AD, I was just about to point out that 60mm mortars seems to offer pretty much all the 81mm does but are more portable. There are, I believe, even PGMs available or in development for them. I do agree a 120mm mortar would be good for use with the Cavalry with others deployed within existing Artillery batteries as a compliment to the 155mms.Not every war is like Afghanistan, but we should base our future fire support needs on a Vietnam war style structure? Come on...
It seems to me that with the strong push within RAINF for a lightweight mortar system (60mm "Commando" style mortar for arguments sake) we re already heading toward the solution that virtually every other Army in the world has adopted.
A light, portable mortar system for light infantry at the section, platoon and company levels and a heavier system for longer ranged fires at battalion / regiment level.
I don't think under that scenario that an 81mm provides enough bang for buck, given the range, firepower available to modern 60mm mortars like the South African 60mm Long Range Mortar.
Well thats a bit different. If you have 60mm mortars that is. But a long range 60mm mortar is pretty much the same footprint as an 81mm mortar. More rounds per tube but not much different in other regards. Commando mortars are not going to displace 81mm mortars that is a platoon weapon and competes with 40mm GLs, Carl Gustavs and the like.
There are other advantages for an 81mm mortar than just portability. Rate of fire and much larger units of fire are very important in mechanised warfare. Especially when it comes to laying smoke. With PGMs an 81mm is going to be just as good as a 120mm in taking out armour and/or bunkers.
If you wanted a good mechnaised warfare mortar than the Soviet 82mm Cornflower system is the way to go. Stick one of these in a turret and you have breech loading, varible charge for direct fires, firing PGMs and behind hill plunging HE and side clip loading for rapid smoke laying. Yet still using the same ammo supply as the lightweight 81mm infantry mortars.
There are other advantages for an 81mm mortar than just portability. Rate of fire and much larger units of fire are very important in mechanised warfare. Especially when it comes to laying smoke. With PGMs an 81mm is going to be just as good as a 120mm in taking out armour and/or bunkers.
If you wanted a good mechnaised warfare mortar than the Soviet 82mm Cornflower system is the way to go. Stick one of these in a turret and you have breech loading, varible charge for direct fires, firing PGMs and behind hill plunging HE and side clip loading for rapid smoke laying. Yet still using the same ammo supply as the lightweight 81mm infantry mortars.
Vietnam war style stucture? What, because I feel that infantry Bns should have their own, man portable fire support?
OK I don't know anything about modern 60 mm mortars, but I do know about modern 5.56mm machine guns.....oh, yeah, they were replaced at section level with old fashioned , Vietnam era 7.62, because they lacked,range, and punch....just like we predicted in the 1980,s and 90,s.
40mm grenade launchers, and multi round 40mm would do at section level, leaving the MAN PORTABLE 81,s as the dedicated fire support at coy and bn level. Everything old is new again. Smart ronds and modern explosives in 81mm would have to have more punch than 60mm.
155,s as art back up with air support, and I'm a pretty confident patrol commander.
OK I don't know anything about modern 60 mm mortars, but I do know about modern 5.56mm machine guns.....oh, yeah, they were replaced at section level with old fashioned , Vietnam era 7.62, because they lacked,range, and punch....just like we predicted in the 1980,s and 90,s.
40mm grenade launchers, and multi round 40mm would do at section level, leaving the MAN PORTABLE 81,s as the dedicated fire support at coy and bn level. Everything old is new again. Smart ronds and modern explosives in 81mm would have to have more punch than 60mm.
155,s as art back up with air support, and I'm a pretty confident patrol commander.
Current Leopard IIs are powered by the original MTU MB 873 engines.Having read about the logistic problems on Main Battle tanks in general and some vauge reports on the M1A operated in Australia and Centurien in Vietnam etc.
Is there any easy Source or figures on the fuel consumption on M1A, Leopards etc?
Which engine does the Leo II operate these days?
In my work, i operate MAN engine, which is pretty Close to Benz used in Leopard II.
One would think they operate the newer "common rail" Engine Versions by now?
For new customers the Europowerpack from MTU is also available (smaller, more powerfull, less fuel consumption).
I have some questions regarding the future role of 2 RAR.
As far as I unterstand 2 RAR needs be different from other RAR BNs because they need some special sub-units in order to fulffill the Amphib role.
So the question is , how different will 2 RAR be from other units? Will it be bigger or have more Infantry companies? Someone once mentioned that it would not make any sense for AUS to have a full Amphib Brigade, because RAN does not have enough assets to deploy a Brigade. Fair enough.
The reason I ask these questions is the following. The Dutch Marine Corps recently changed its struture from 2 Marien Bns, 1 Landing Support Bn and 1 CSS Bn to integrated Marine Combat Groups.
Each of the 2 new Marine Combat Group will consist of the following sub-units.
Command Staff - 30 personnel
Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition Squadron 87 personnel
3 Raiding Squadrons each with 108 personnel
Combat Support Squadron consist of 114 men and a besides its staff fields an Assault Engineer Troop, an Anti-Armour Troop and an Armoured All Terrain Vehicle Troop. Each of these three troops fields three identical sections, with each section supporting one Raiding Squadron of the Marine Combat Group.
Combat Service Support Squadron consists of a Workshop Troop, a Transport Troop, an Equipment Support Troop, a Medical Support Troop and a Communication and Information Systems Troop. 171 personnel
For me this sounds like a good blue-print for the future 2 RAR.
But keeping in mind that RAN has more and bigger assets to deploy amphibious forces (2 LHD/ 1 LPD vs 2 LPD in Dutch service), would it be even feasible to establish the equivalent of 4 Raiding/Amphibious companies instead of 3.
As far as I unterstand 2 RAR needs be different from other RAR BNs because they need some special sub-units in order to fulffill the Amphib role.
So the question is , how different will 2 RAR be from other units? Will it be bigger or have more Infantry companies? Someone once mentioned that it would not make any sense for AUS to have a full Amphib Brigade, because RAN does not have enough assets to deploy a Brigade. Fair enough.
The reason I ask these questions is the following. The Dutch Marine Corps recently changed its struture from 2 Marien Bns, 1 Landing Support Bn and 1 CSS Bn to integrated Marine Combat Groups.
Each of the 2 new Marine Combat Group will consist of the following sub-units.
Command Staff - 30 personnel
Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition Squadron 87 personnel
3 Raiding Squadrons each with 108 personnel
Combat Support Squadron consist of 114 men and a besides its staff fields an Assault Engineer Troop, an Anti-Armour Troop and an Armoured All Terrain Vehicle Troop. Each of these three troops fields three identical sections, with each section supporting one Raiding Squadron of the Marine Combat Group.
Combat Service Support Squadron consists of a Workshop Troop, a Transport Troop, an Equipment Support Troop, a Medical Support Troop and a Communication and Information Systems Troop. 171 personnel
For me this sounds like a good blue-print for the future 2 RAR.
But keeping in mind that RAN has more and bigger assets to deploy amphibious forces (2 LHD/ 1 LPD vs 2 LPD in Dutch service), would it be even feasible to establish the equivalent of 4 Raiding/Amphibious companies instead of 3.
While it's yet to be set in stone, 2 RAR will likely consist of only two Amphibious Ready Elements (AREs), which will rotate to maintain that capability. Essentially 2 RAR will consist of two rifle companies, a small support company, a reinforced HQ and a large admin company. It will also have two direct support ASLAV troops and Bushmaster troops.
In the event of a large amphibious operation, the majority of troops will simply come from the ready brigade, not just 2 RAR.
In the event of a large amphibious operation, the majority of troops will simply come from the ready brigade, not just 2 RAR.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Two ASLAV troops means the ARE has significant Direct Fire Support assets.While it's yet to be set in stone, 2 RAR will likely consist of only two Amphibious Ready Elements (AREs), which will rotate to maintain that capability. Essentially 2 RAR will consist of two rifle companies, a small support company, a reinforced HQ and a large admin company. It will also have two direct support ASLAV troops and Bushmaster troops.
In the event of a large amphibious operation, the majority of troops will simply come from the ready brigade, not just 2 RAR.
Is an ASLAV troop still 4 ASLAV 25s and 2 ASLAV-PCs?
But are there any permanently attached Indirect Fire Support assets?
Is there planned to be a Mortar Platoon or Artillery Battery?
Why only two?While it's yet to be set in stone, 2 RAR will likely consist of only two Amphibious Ready Elements (AREs), which will rotate to maintain that capability. Essentially 2 RAR will consist of two rifle companies, a small support company, a reinforced HQ and a large admin company. It will also have two direct support ASLAV troops and Bushmaster troops.
In the event of a large amphibious operation, the majority of troops will simply come from the ready brigade, not just 2 RAR.
Are they only planning on fielding the AREs via the 2 LHDs?
Yeah, an ASLAV troop in unchanged. ASLAVs were added to the ARE when simulation showed it needed more combat weight.Two ASLAV troops means the ARE has significant Direct Fire Support assets.
Is an ASLAV troop still 4 ASLAV 25s and 2 ASLAV-PCs?
But are there any permanently attached Indirect Fire Support assets?
Is there planned to be a Mortar Platoon or Artillery Battery?
2 RAR will still have it's mortar platoon, but no arty is assigned to the ARE.
The ARE's tasks are primarily disaster relief/humanitarian assistance and low level non-combatant evacuation operations. Arty isn't particularly necessary for those roles. If the task at hand needs more combat power than the ARE can provide, then the ready brigade will provide those capabilities.
No, the two combat teams of 2 RAR will rotate to provide the online ARE, which is as the name suggests the permanently ready amphibious element in Army. The ARE will spend a fair bit of its time embarked in either an LHD or the Choules, tooling around the Pacific training with other nations and generally being ready for when an incident occurs.Why only two?
Are they only planning on fielding the AREs via the 2 LHDs?
If a larger amphibious element is required, then it will simply come from the ready brigade.
Not to mention that the LHD its self would likely be escorted by something armed with a 5" gun and could quite well be carrying a few Tigers as well.Yeah, an ASLAV troop in unchanged. ASLAVs were added to the ARE when simulation showed it needed more combat weight.
2 RAR will still have it's mortar platoon, but no arty is assigned to the ARE.
The ARE's tasks are primarily disaster relief/humanitarian assistance and low level non-combatant evacuation operations. Arty isn't particularly necessary for those roles. If the task at hand needs more combat power than the ARE can provide, then the ready brigade will provide those capabilities.
I assume the ASLAV troop will still be RAAC, will they be drawn, on a rotational basis from one of the existing /planned ACRs or will they be an established unit in their own right? Either way I imagine it would be a plumb posting.
Sort of reminds me about a paper I read years ago proposing the formation of a force of marines. I can't remember if it was for a Regiment or Brigade but its role, besides providing an amphibious ready group was to build and retain corporate knowledge in relation to amphibious operations and facilitate the deployment of non amphibious units / formation in amphibious operations. Sounds to be pretty much what is happening but with out the name change.
It's very unlikely Tigers would be embarked with the ARE on a routine basis. Normally just a troop of MRH would be carried.Not to mention that the LHD its self would likely be escorted by something armed with a 5" gun and could quite well be carrying a few Tigers as well.
I assume the ASLAV troop will still be RAAC, will they be drawn, on a rotational basis from one of the existing /planned ACRs or will they be an established unit in their own right? Either way I imagine it would be a plumb posting.
Sort of reminds me about a paper I read years ago proposing the formation of a force of marines. I can't remember if it was for a Regiment or Brigade but its role, besides providing an amphibious ready group was to build and retain corporate knowledge in relation to amphibious operations and facilitate the deployment of non amphibious units / formation in amphibious operations. Sounds to be pretty much what is happening but with out the name change.
The ASLAVs are still RAAC crewed. The exact command relationship hasn't been worked out as far as I know, but 2 RARs ASLAV troops will be raised, trained and sustained by 2 Cav (the Townsville based ACR). Whether they actually belong to 2 RAR, live in the 2 RAR compound with the crews posted to 2 RAR, or whether they will belong to 2 Cav and simply allocated direct support to 2 RAR who knows. Probably the latter.
The two troops are in addition to the ACRs own ASLAV squadron though. Theoretically 2 Cav will have six ASLAV troops, two belonging to to 2 RAR.
I don't know about "logistic problems" tanks have faced. But if you want to read a reasonably detailed assessment of the logistics required to support a small detachement of tanks in theatre there was a recent article in the Australian Army Journal about it.Having read about the logistic problems on Main Battle tanks in general and some vauge reports on the M1A operated in Australia and Centurien in Vietnam etc.
Is there any easy Source or figures on the fuel consumption on M1A, Leopards etc?
http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/L...AAJ/2010Summer/05-WinningTheCoinTossCombi.pdf
With only two of them though they are going to be pretty busy though?No, the two combat teams of 2 RAR will rotate to provide the online ARE, which is as the name suggests the permanently ready amphibious element in Army. The ARE will spend a fair bit of its time embarked in either an LHD or the Choules, tooling around the Pacific training with other nations and generally being ready for when an incident occurs.
With two AREs its one time unit on, one time unit off. The same as the old ODF high readiness battalion. When they are the ready unit won’t mean all of that time embarked on a Navy LHD. Maybe one 2-3 month cruise per year of high readiness and then a year off to raise, train, sustain. That doesn’t sound too bad.With only two of them though they are going to be pretty busy though?
It's probably worth pointing out that 2 RAR battlegroup will be the Army main effort, and the normal personnel and readiness issues you have with other units won't be too much of a problem. The idea is the unit will be allocated to 1 Div, with personnel going through a rigorous readiness process, similar to that of a deployment, to get allocated to the unit. It's likely only to be a short posting for most people too, so it's not like soldiers will be expected to be online 50% of the time for years on end.With two AREs its one time unit on, one time unit off. The same as the old ODF high readiness battalion. When they are the ready unit won’t mean all of that time embarked on a Navy LHD. Maybe one 2-3 month cruise per year of high readiness and then a year off to raise, train, sustain. That doesn’t sound too bad.
Short posting? So you are saying / hinting that it will also serve as a conduit to get amphib trained soldiers out to the other battalions? I suppose the two CAV troops in their ORBAT will serve a similar function for the ACRs?It's probably worth pointing out that 2 RAR battlegroup will be the Army main effort, and the normal personnel and readiness issues you have with other units won't be too much of a problem. The idea is the unit will be allocated to 1 Div, with personnel going through a rigorous readiness process, similar to that of a deployment, to get allocated to the unit. It's likely only to be a short posting for most people too, so it's not like soldiers will be expected to be online 50% of the time for years on end.