Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[vonnoobie]

I think you are making my point.

"The enemy won't even have to worry about deploying armour, their infantry will pick you off long before you get there" whether you are in an IFV/APC or not.

Adding the IFV does not change the outcome.
A well equipped defending force in a "fortified town" will hit you as soon as you enter the "open terrain" 10 km out

From 10 kms they will be hitting you with:
Mortars, Precision Guided and specialised homing Anti-Armour (equivalent of the SMART 155 rounds for artillery).
Drones
Loitering munitions.
Long Range Guided Weapons e.g.Spike ER II (10km range)

From 5km the regular ATGMs will join the attack.

How will being in an IFV prevent this from happening.
Will the 30 mm IFV Cannon supress the enemy mortar teams or other weapons teams from 10km out? Nope
Will the heavy armour of an IFV prevent a top attack mortar or ATGM from killing the vehicle. Nope
Oh you say "I'll add an Active Protection System". Not sure how well it protects you from Mortars or top attack but even it does, the same APS could just be added to a light armoured vehicle to give the same degree of protection. It is not anything intrinsic to the IFV which will protect you in this scenario. You will be just as protected travelling in a Light Armoured Vehicle, say a French VBMR Griffon (armoured against 14.5mm APS) with an APS.
Alright you say, "It is not the IFV, in this scenario which protects the Infantry, it is the other aspects of Combined Arms, like air power, like artillery, like attack helicopters." Exactly, so why is an IFV vital in this scenario again?

And just to get one thing clear, I am not advocating you walk everywhere. You need protection from Mines/IEDs and small arms wherever you are travelling. But the fore mentioned VBMR is an example of a light vehicle that can do that. Just don't think you can use your vehicle to close right in with the enemy.

I suppose what I am saying is that the idea of a vehicle which can carry the Infantry right up to the enemy and then kills them (i.e. an IFV) is borderline not viable Today and will only become less so as anti-armour technologies improve in the future.

I give up an common sense, you're just cherry picking what you're replying to know ignoring every other pertinent point that all ties in to it.

 

[Gryphinator]

I agree with Mark. We should concentrate on systems that prevent the landing of armoured forces. No expeditionary force. We're about defending Australia. That does not need a deployment of diggers overseas.

Now what if one lands, now what do we do? I hear you ask-well that means we've had a catastrophic failure and a few tanks for our very large island are going to be next to useless. IFV's maybe a little more usefull but still, the point of bigger failures elsewhere stands...

 

[JulioCompactus]

if I have $5B of aircraft sitting on an airfield anywhere up north I want at least some IFV as part of the protecting force to protect from any sort of VDV or special forces type assault. Light forces are easy to insert but very vulnerable to armour especially as their logistic support is problematic if inserted by air.

 

[Boagrius]

I suppose what I am saying is that the idea of a vehicle which can carry the Infantry right up to the enemy and then kills them (i.e. an IFV) is borderline not viable Today and will only become less so as anti-armour technologies improve in the future.

Last I checked, Army themselves do not agree and I suspect this gives a good explanation as to why:

(like the last time I posted here, the video is time-stamped to the relevant section so you just need to hit play)

 

[Gryphinator]

if I have $5B of aircraft sitting on an airfield anywhere up north I want at least some IFV as part of the protecting force to protect from any sort of VDV or special forces type assault. Light forces are easy to insert but very vulnerable to armour especially as their logistic support is problematic if inserted by air.

Co-locating an armoured regt at Tindal are we? Or ADGies getting an upgrade? Airborne assault? That 5bn of planes you mentioned have already failed.

 

[JulioCompactus]

wow did i say regiment? i think i said some. what you need to understand is vehicles bring great sensors with a reliable power supply to the battlefield and tracks bring mobility to enable an active defence of static targets like airfields. If you want to use static light infantry as your solution to protect something as large as a fast jet base we are talking a battalion. Tindal, Shergher, Weipa, Learmonth etc. i don't think that's an option for the current ARMY. Has to be a mobile defence and in the damp that is tracks.

 

[Gryphinator]

wow did i say regiment? i think i said some. what you need to understand is vehicles bring great sensors with a reliable power supply to the battlefield and tracks bring mobility to enable an active defence of static targets like airfields. If you want to use static light infantry as your solution to protect something as large as a fast jet base we are talking a battalion. Tindal, Shergher, Weipa, Learmonth etc. i don't think that's an option for the current ARMY. Has to be a mobile defence and in the damp that is tracks.

No ones invading Tindal et al anytime soon. we have ADGies and security for those bases (missile defence at some stage hopefully) I'm not talking about defending installations anyway, I'm talking defence of the land mass that is Australia. Deterrence is needed (Subs and P-8'swith LRASM++) oh and excellent surveillance-already there...
75 tanks isn't making anyone think twice, especially with the size of the place.

 

[ngatimozart]

And remember, even if the Australian Army was to deploy an entire Brigade, it will deploy a grand total of 14 Tanks!

Support this with some verifiable evidence including sources. Quickly.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Support this with some verifiable evidence including sources. Quickly.

Structure of an Australian Combat Brigade outlined on page 8.
A Brigade contains a single Armoured cavalry Regiment.
An Australian Armoured Cavalry Regiment contains a single Tank Squadron:

Wayback Machine

So an Australian Brigade contains a single Tank Squadron.
Structure of 2 Cav, the ACR of 3 Brigade confirmed in Ironsides 2017 page 21 in article on 2 Cav.
2 Cav contains a single tank Squadron-C Squadron and two ASLAV Squadrons, A and B squadron.
Access to Journal only available with purchase as far as I am aware:

Ironsides - Journal of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps 2017

Title: Ironsides - Journal of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps - 2017 Edition Author: Condition: Near Mint Edition: 1st Edition Publication Date: 2017 Cover: Soft Cover without Dust Jacket - 68 pages Comments: Journal of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps - 2017 Edition. Covers the Corp's

regimental-books.com.au

An Australian tank Squadron contains 14 Abrams.

I am sure Raven can confirm all of the above

 

[JulioCompactus]

No ones invading Tindal et al anytime soon. we have ADGies and security for those bases (missile defence at some stage hopefully) I'm not talking about defending installations anyway, I'm talking defence of the land mass that is Australia. Deterrence is needed (Subs and P-8'swith LRASM++) oh and excellent surveillance-already there...
75 tanks isn't making anyone think twice, especially with the size of the place.

Special Forces (SAS) were invented to attack airfields in North Africa which is why its a significant part of every Kangaroo Exercise because small forces can achieve big things on an airfield. An the ADGE force is tiny and absolutely needs ARMY.

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

Mark, if we were to deploy a Regular (training) Brigade without augmenting the currently attached armour, this would be correct. And if we had to deploy three Regular Brigades simultaneously, this would be correct. However, the underlying assumption is that we only deploy one Brigade, so we can augment with all available armour assets (most of the existing 59 tanks rising to most of the 75 in a few years). And we may deploy two or more mechanised battalions. If we need to deploy for extended periods, we would need to either supplement our stocks or/and add in coalition forces, and doesn't allow for massive attrition. The three current brigades are meant to ensure that our army appreciates combined arms warfare but are not full strength deployable Armoured Brigades.

durn spellchecker .... appreciates not underappreciates

 

[Julian 82]

Co-locating an armoured regt at Tindal are we? Or ADGies getting an upgrade? Airborne assault? That 5bn of planes you mentioned have already failed.

I agree with Mark. We should concentrate on systems that prevent the landing of armoured forces. No expeditionary force. We're about defending Australia. That does not need a deployment of diggers overseas.

Now what if one lands, now what do we do? I hear you ask-well that means we've had a catastrophic failure and a few tanks for our very large island are going to be next to useless. IFV's maybe a little more usefull but still, the point of bigger failures elsewhere stands...

How about stopping the enemy establishing air fields and naval bases in PNG or the Solomon Islands? Surely it would be better to be proactive rather than wait for the enemy to land on our shores. I’m pretty sure that’s why we fought the Japanese at Milne Bay (just one of many examples). That is where I think armoured forces will be useful. Even a squadron of tanks supported by infantry and a battery of SPHs will make a huge difference in that scenario. Shock and rapid violence of action to put the enemy off balance while reducing your own casualties.

 

[ADMk2]

Structure of an Australian Combat Brigade outlined on page 8.
A Brigade contains a single Armoured cavalry Regiment.
An Australian Armoured Cavalry Regiment contains a single Tank Squadron:

Wayback Machine

View attachment 49022
So an Australian Brigade contains a single Tank Squadron.
Structure of 2 Cav, the ACR of 3 Brigade confirmed in Ironsides 2017 page 21 in article on 2 Cav.
2 Cav contains a single tank Squadron-C Squadron and two ASLAV Squadrons, A and B squadron.
Access to Journal only available with purchase as far as I am aware:

Ironsides - Journal of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps 2017

Title: Ironsides - Journal of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps - 2017 Edition Author: Condition: Near Mint Edition: 1st Edition Publication Date: 2017 Cover: Soft Cover without Dust Jacket - 68 pages Comments: Journal of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps - 2017 Edition. Covers the Corp's

regimental-books.com.au

An Australian tank Squadron contains 14 Abrams.

I am sure Raven can confirm all of the above

Army has already moved beyond the Beersheba Brigade structure. It was designed during a time when we needed to sustain a brigade group in operations in COIN roles for years on end.

Those days are presently over.

Army deploys taskgroups matched to the nature of the mission we intend to conduct. If such a mission requires more tanks, they’ll have more tanks, if it doesn’t it will have fewer (or none most likely).

The dispersed 3 squadron structure gives excellent combined arms training opportunities across a wider section of Army.

I’m not sure anyone ever said that is precisely how we would deploy…

 

[Gryphinator]

How about stopping the enemy establishing air fields and naval bases in PNG or the Solomon Islands? Surely it would be better to be proactive rather than wait for the enemy to land on our shores. I’m pretty sure that’s why we fought the Japanese at Milne Bay (just one of many examples). That is where I think armoured forces will be useful. Even a squadron of tanks supported by infantry and a battery of SPHs will make a huge difference in that scenario. Shock and rapid violence of action to put the enemy off balance while reducing your own casualties.

Hence why I advocate LR missiles/deterrence. Throwing a squadron of Abram's on an airfield in the middle of the Pacific or in PNG isn't achieving much. We can't withstand a determined enemy in those scenarios. Defending our mainland. Forward defence via RAAF and RAN. Army when it gets a bit more "personal" and I'd hope we'd have a fair amount of warning if invasion was imminent to raise the pers needed...

 

[Julian 82]

Hence why I advocate LR missiles/deterrence. Throwing a squadron of Abram's on an airfield in the middle of the Pacific or in PNG isn't achieving much. We can't withstand a determined enemy in those scenarios. Defending our mainland. Forward defence via RAAF and RAN. Army when it gets a bit more "personal" and I'd hope we'd have a fair amount of warning if invasion was imminent to raise the pers needed...

Aircraft or missiles can’t hold or deny ground to an enemy. Under your policy our army won’t have any tanks or people with institutional knowledge to operate tanks so they will be at a significant disadvantage when things get more “personal” (noting that the aggressor will likely be using tanks against us). Sorry $3.5 billion is chicken feed to maintain a useful capability for the ADF. That amount got pissed against the wall on Naval Group who will deliver nothing to the ADF.

 

[buffy9]

Hence why I advocate LR missiles/deterrence. Throwing a squadron of Abram's on an airfield in the middle of the Pacific or in PNG isn't achieving much. We can't withstand a determined enemy in those scenarios. Defending our mainland. Forward defence via RAAF and RAN. Army when it gets a bit more "personal" and I'd hope we'd have a fair amount of warning if invasion was imminent to raise the pers needed...

Our interests go beyond our own shores. How is ANZUS/AUKUS, FPDA, the QUAD and our trade/security relationships relevant if we are only willing to send aircraft and ships?

Missiles are not the be all and end all. Our Army thinks this, as do many others - across our immediate region, wider region and globally.

Army when it gets a bit more "personal" and I'd hope we'd have a fair amount of warning if invasion was imminent to raise the pers needed...

Hope is not a method. Army, with the knowledge it possesses, has come to the conclusion it can't afford to do away with proven methods to pursue a strategy/force that greatly reduces its ability to conduct combined arms and land maneuvre - both proven methods, unlike infantry based deterrence that is going to be a greater drain on manpower going into the future and which is less useful in supporting our partners and allies when things get "personal" (read: close combat).

 

[Gryphinator]

Aircraft or missiles can’t hold or deny ground to an enemy. Under your policy our army won’t have any tanks or people with institutional knowledge to operate tanks so they will be at a significant disadvantage when things get more “personal” (noting that the aggressor will likely be using tanks against us). Sorry $3.5 billion is chicken feed to maintain a useful capability for the ADF. That amount got pissed against the wall on Naval Group who will deliver nothing to the ADF.

You specifically mentioned airfields and naval bases, easy to destroy/deny with missiles. You mention they'll be using tanks against us-the aim is to not let them in. In the event they do land, 75 isn't going to be enough. Until the US Army prepositions some (quite a few!) here, in which case I'll say yep great purchase, it's not the best use of funds.

 

[Boagrius]

You specifically mentioned airfields and naval bases, easy to destroy/deny with missiles. You mention they'll be using tanks against us-the aim is to not let them in. In the event they do land, 75 isn't going to be enough. Until the US Army prepositions some (quite a few!) here, in which case I'll say yep great purchase, it's not the best use of funds.

Gutting the Army's capacity to conduct close combat (and perform one of its absolute core roles in an integrated joint force) is the very definition of robbing Peter to pay Paul. As @ADMk2 quite aptly pointed out, keeping this capability sharp (and the hard-won corporate knowledge that cannot simply be plucked from thin air later on if needed) will, by contrast, not mean compromising our capacity to conduct the air/sea battle.

I'd contend that we are actually comparatively well placed in this area, albeit mostly due to current and planned RAAF capabilities. With the ongoing enhancements to the size and funding of the ADF as a whole, though, it is surely not a zero-sum equation.

 

[Julian 82]

You specifically mentioned airfields and naval bases, easy to destroy/deny with missiles. You mention they'll be using tanks against us-the aim is to not let them in. In the event they do land, 75 isn't going to be enough. Until the US Army prepositions some (quite a few!) here, in which case I'll say yep great purchase, it's not the best use of funds.

Missiles and aircraft can get shot down and have a finite quantity. Damage from such strikes can also be repaired. Denying that ground to the enemy is a sure way of ensuring it cannot be used against you (either as a staging area or base of operations).

As others have said it is not an either/or situation. You don’t have a footy team of just key tall forwards and intercepting backs. A successful team also needs half back flankers, small forwards and midfielders. Likewise the ADF needs long range strike, air defence and sea control as well as forces who can close with and kill the enemy in close combat. It would be a folly to rely on missiles and air power alone.

 

[old faithful]

I get a feeling that what ever we have on order won't come soon enough sadly.
Russia has re activated bases in the arctic that have been abandoned for some time.
Lots going on in Europe, with Germany discussing national service again.
Highway cameras in Poland de activated.
It's getting a bit warm....