Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[LegionnairE]

This argument, and not just from you, always makes me laugh. I can see it now, "the M26 is already at 42 t, how much heavier can we go?! The M4 is only 30 t!"... or, "the M60 is already at 50 t, how much heavier can we go?! The M26 is only 42 t!"... or, "the M1 is already at 60 t, how much heavier can we go?! The M60 is only 50 t!".

Yup. Tanks get heavier. Everything gets heavier, even us humans, as we age. But that's ok, if two things happen. One, the engines need to keep up. In this case, they have - the M1 has better mechanical performance than the M4 in every way, depending on variants its 2 - 4 times more powerful per tonne. With sufficient engine performance you can ignore a lot. Just compare the Königstiger you mention (the Maus comparison is silly, it's still heavier than two M1A2 SEP v3 combined...), it made 515 kW, the AGT1500 makes 1120 kW. With about eleventy thousand percent more reliability and simplicity.

The second point is the support elements. Yes, a heavier tank needs heavier logistics (including infrastructure). But that's the price you pay for fighting. As with anything, the user scenario defines the need first and foremost. The fact is that modern anti-tank weapons need a certain level of armour. That also means there needs to be a certain level of armament to kill enemy AFV. Which defines the minimum weight. The log elements have to match that. As a loggie, would it be easier to support a M4 unit? Probably not, but lets assume so. It'll be really easy after D-Day when they are all dead because they can't survive. No point in having light 'stuff' because it makes a loggies life easy if they all die in the first two hours when an appropriately armoured platform can survive and fight beyond that. And we have done that... just look at the Diamond T M20 truck (150kW) compared to a MAN TGA we use today (~400kW)

We have 560kW Trucks that are more than capable of hauling around Maus weighed objects. Obviously we can go much heavier. The world had Maus once, It could have it again, with much better power packs and suspensions. The question is if it's wise. If the other guy just makes more clever use of armor and can get better protection with lower tonnage.

When it was just the T-14 Armata, people were calling it junk and calling me a Russian bot. Ever since the KF51, I don't hear such accusations anymore, even the Turkish defence ministry unveiled plans for Altay T3 going to an unmanned turret. Slowly but surely people are accepting that this is the future.

Let's just say that I'm wrong about everything and you're right about everything. That unmanned turrets are a joke and they can be taken out by medium machineguns. That still brings you to 2030ies with an 80-90 ton Abrams going around trying to intimidate people with the puny L44 gun. The jokes write themselves. Typical American the tank, so fat can't see his own peepee?

When I said "Australia should at least demand that their tanks be built with L55 guns" the same Australians who argued that Australia has a small population, that Australian army deserves the best, etc. came to me and said "no that would be too expensive." I guess money is a factor now.

Look, I'm sure that you guys know best, after all, you're the experts. I'm just a newbie.

 

[the road runner]

Typical American the tank, so fat can't see his own peepee?

Have you ever seen the size difference between an Abrams and say Lynx or Redback? Abrams looks small compared to Lynx and Redback.
Below link is a picture of Lav and Boxer compared to Abrams (can not find pic of Abrams/Lynx/Redback)
LAND 400 Phase 2 decision revealed - Defence Connect

When I said "Australia should at least demand that their tanks be built with L55 guns" the same Australians who argued that Australia has a small population, that Australian army deserves the best, etc. came to me and said "no that would be too expensive." I guess money is a factor now.

Money is always a factor

 

[LegionnairE]

Have you ever seen the size difference between an Abrams and say Lynx or Redback? Abrams looks small compared to Lynx and Redback.
Below link is a picture of Lav and Boxer compared to Abrams (can not find pic of Abrams/Lynx/Redback)
LAND 400 Phase 2 decision revealed - Defence Connect

What is your point with this? Yes, the MBT is smaller than the IFV, If anything this should tell you that smaller can be better. Now let's put it next to a newer tank, K2 Black Panther for example.

 

[Volkodav]

What is your point with this? Yes, the MBT is smaller than the IFV, If anything this should tell you that smaller can be better. Now let's put it next to a newer tank, K2 Black Panther for example.

What is your point?

You go on and on, and round and round, contradicting yourself on the way, but arguing with everyone who attempts to discuss or explain.

At the moment there are upgrades available for M-1, new upgrades are being developed, new vehicles are being designed and there are literally thousands of M-1s available to upgrade.

The M-1 is demonstrably good, it is capable, it is survivable and it is superior to most Russian (still mostly Soviet era design) and Chinese tanks.

What is your problem?

 

[the road runner]

What is your point with this? Yes, the MBT is smaller than the IFV, If anything this should tell you that smaller can be better. Now let's put it next to a newer tank, K2 Black Panther for example.

My point being... You have come here and refused to listen too Actual people who serve on these platforms. or have first hand know how on these vehicles. You agree with people once you have been called out and you are actually just being down right rude ! You may want to post less and read more !

 

[LegionnairE]

What is your point?

You go on and on, and round and round, contradicting yourself on the way, but arguing with everyone who attempts to discuss or explain.

At the moment there are upgrades available for M-1, new upgrades are being developed, new vehicles are being designed and there are literally thousands of M-1s available to upgrade.

The M-1 is demonstrably good, it is capable, it is survivable and it is superior to most Russian (still mostly Soviet era design) and Chinese tanks.

What is your problem?

I explained my point a million times and frankly it's starting to get ridiculous.

TL;DR;

• Yes, I know M1 is good, battle proven, capable
• It's not a very good long term plan
• the platform is starting to reach its limits
• a new generation of tanks are coming that might be worth waiting a few years
  
  I hate repeating myself and mods can delete this if they deem it necessary.

My point being... You have come here and refused to listen too Actual people who serve on these platforms. or have first hand know how on these vehicles. You agree with people once you have been called out and you are actually just being down right rude ! You may want to post less and read more !

I didn't mean to disrespect anyone, if you serve on these platforms, do share your experience I'd be glad to read it.

Mod Edit: Unnecessary and disrespectful/inappropriate language deleted. Member banned for violating Forum Rules #'s 4 & 5 as well as a later post where the poster suggested they be banned.
-Preceptor

 

[the road runner]

I didn't mean to disrespect anyone, if you serve on these platforms, do share your experience I'd be glad to read it. Should I get down on my knees to suck your dick or something?

You didnt mean to disrespect anyone yet you write this ! ABTW i never served ,but i like listening to people who have and learn

 

[Redlands18]

We have 560kW Trucks that are more than capable of hauling around Maus weighed objects. Obviously we can go much heavier. The world had Maus once, It could have it again, with much better power packs and suspensions. The question is if it's wise. If the other guy just makes more clever use of armor and can get better protection with lower tonnage.

When it was just the T-14 Armata, people were calling it junk and calling me a Russian bot. Ever since the KF51, I don't hear such accusations anymore, even the Turkish defence ministry unveiled plans for Altay T3 going to an unmanned turret. Slowly but surely people are accepting that this is the future.

Let's just say that I'm wrong about everything and you're right about everything. That unmanned turrets are a joke and they can be taken out by medium machineguns. That still brings you to 2030ies with an 80-90 ton Abrams going around trying to intimidate people with the puny L44 gun. The jokes write themselves. Typical American the tank, so fat can't see his own peepee?

When I said "Australia should at least demand that their tanks be built with L55 guns" the same Australians who argued that Australia has a small population, that Australian army deserves the best, etc. came to me and said "no that would be too expensive." I guess money is a factor now.

Look, I'm sure that you guys know best, after all, you're the experts. I'm just a newbie.

The Iraqi Army had bigger Guns on most of their Tanks in 1991, 125mm v 120 and 105mm than the US, British and French, if I recall correctly many of the US M-1s were still fitted with the L52 105mm, didn't do the Iraqi's one bit of good. Doesn't matter how good your Tanks are, how big the Guns are if you fail in any of the following.

Training of both Tank Crews and Maintenance crews.
Logistics, incl ammo, fuel, spare parts, food, water, medical,
Transport
Command and Control
ISR
Communications
Electronic Warfare, both defensive and offensive.

Your Super Tanks are nothing but scrap metal on the side of the road.
If your crew is untrained.
If the Crew is dead of starvation, disease, wounds or dehydration.
If they have no ammo, no fuel or missing spare parts.
You have no Tpt to resupply them, yea the German Army planned to deploy the Maus in WW2 but only had Horse and Carts to resupply them.
Can't safely communicate with HQ.
Got no idea where the enemy is.

It has been said many times on this forum, by far more knowledgeable than me "No weapon system operates in isolation". The ability to put your Tanks in the right place at the right time will nearly always beat "a better Tank" History is replete with Armies that have better weapons being defeated by smaller forces, simply because they failed in any of the above.

 

[LegionnairE]

You didnt mean to disrespect anyone yet you write this ! ABTW i never served ,but i like listening to people who have and learn

Look, I come from a part of the world that do things VERY differently and I have a very different perspective. We put multimillion dollar systems on platforms that you call 60ies junk:

https://defence.az/az/news/152601/turkey-conducts-operational-firing-test-with-hisar-a+-air-defence-missile-system

Now first I get in trouble because I see nothing wrong with this platform but apparently Australians have been waiting for decades for a replacement and are fed up enough to take that anger on me. And now I'm dealing with this bullshit for not being amazed enough with the space age technology that is M1 Abrams.

 

[LegionnairE]

The Iraqi Army had bigger Guns on most of their Tanks in 1991, 125mm v 120 and 105mm than the US, British and French, if I recall correctly many of the US M-1s were still fitted with the L52 105mm, didn't do the Iraqi's one bit of good. Doesn't matter how good your Tanks are, how big the Guns are if you fail in any of the following.

Training of both Tank Crews and Maintenance crews.
Logistics, incl ammo, fuel, spare parts, food, water, medical,
Transport
Command and Control
ISR
Communications
Electronic Warfare, both defensive and offensive.

Your Super Tanks are nothing but scrap metal on the side of the road.
If your crew is untrained.
If the Crew is dead of starvation, disease, wounds or dehydration.
If they have no ammo, no fuel or missing spare parts.
You have no Tpt to resupply them, yea the German Army planned to deploy the Maus in WW2 but only had Horse and Carts to resupply them.
Can't safely communicate with HQ.
Got no idea where the enemy is.

It has been said many times on this forum, by far more knowledgeable than me "No weapon system operates in isolation". The ability to put your Tanks in the right place at the right time will nearly always beat "a better Tank" History is replete with Armies that have better weapons being defeated by smaller forces, simply because they failed in any of the above.

I agree with all of this. Are we supposed to fight? I won't, I agree. I would still prefer to buy the better tank if I'm in the market for tanks.

 

[Volkodav]

Look, I come from a part of the world that do things VERY differently and I have a very different perspective. We put multimillion dollar systems on platforms that you call 60ies junk:

https://defence.az/az/news/152601/turkey-conducts-operational-firing-test-with-hisar-a+-air-defence-missile-system

Now first I get in trouble because I see nothing wrong with this platform but apparently Australians have been waiting for decades for a replacement and are fed up enough to take that anger on me. And now I'm dealing with this bullshit for not being amazed enough with the space age technology that is M1 Abrams.

You are with one post saying a long obsolete APC with marginal upgrades is a better option than a new generation IFV, then the next post that a considerably new designed MBT that has an on going development program and has a replacement planned, is obsolete and useless.

You ignore the fact that the nation you are talking about, Australia, already has substantial numbers of up armoured support vehicles, that are far more capable and survivable in their roles than the ancient M-113.

You ignore the fact that one of the big gaps Australia has is an IFV.

Some nations are onto the third generation IFV, Australia has yet to introduce it's first. This is a major gap.

 

[LegionnairE]

You are with one post saying a long obsolete APC with marginal upgrades is a better option than a new generation IFV, then the next post that a considerably new designed MBT that has an on going development program and has a replacement planned, is obsolete and useless.

You ignore the fact that the nation you are talking about, Australia, already has substantial numbers of up armoured support vehicles, that are far more capable and survivable in their roles than the ancient M-113.

You ignore the fact that one of the big gaps Australia has is an IFV.

Some nations are onto the third generation IFV, Australia has yet to introduce it's first. This is a major gap.

I think you're the exact person that I said this to:

Look I don't know what the right choice is for Australia. There are too many variables.

I just disagree with the notion that this is a laughing matter.

I think I chose my words very carefully and tried not to make any big claims like "I know what's best for Australia let me explain to you"

I don't know how it came to this, every time I receive an E-mail from defence talk my reaction is "oh shit here we go again"

For the millionth time APCs and MBTs are held up to different standards.

You can hesitate a little bit when you're paying millions of dollars per tank even if it's a good tank.

The metal box with tracks that you already have, arguing that there could be still some use for it, maybe it's a different discussion? I don't know, am I retarded?

Anyway I feel like we're not speaking the same language, and no offense to anyone but maybe this forum and I we're just not a good fit, admins can ban me if they like. I am genuinely tired of this.

 

[Stampede]

I think you're the exact person that I said this to:



I think I chose my words very carefully and tried not to make any big claims like "I know what's best for Australia let me explain to you"

I don't know how it came to this, every time I receive an E-mail from defence talk my reaction is "oh shit here we go again"

For the millionth time APCs and MBTs are held up to different standards.

You can hesitate a little bit when you're paying millions of dollars per tank even if it's a good tank.

The metal box with tracks that you already have, arguing that there could be still some use for it, maybe it's a different discussion? I don't know, am I retarded?

Anyway I feel like we're not speaking the same language, and no offense to anyone but maybe this forum and I we're just not a good fit, admins can ban me if they like. I am genuinely tired of this.

Robust conversation has a place, but this subject is on loop.
We all need to move on.

Suggest LegionnairE your enthusiasm for posting comes with courtesy and a standard of language that we expect and enjoy on this forum.

Cheers S

 

[Todjaeger]

I explained my point a million times and frankly it's starting to get ridiculous.

TL;DR;

• Yes, I know M1 is good, battle proven, capable
• It's not a very good long term plan
• the platform is starting to reach its limits
• a new generation of tanks are coming that might be worth waiting a few years

I am making this post not to seek a reply from the now banned poster, but more to provide info and context for forum visitors that might come across the assertions made above, and not realize that the poster did not know what they were talking about, made illogical arguments for procurements which were unsupported by facts, and was making things up.

The first point is basically the only one they got correct.

The last three points are wrong and this is documented here. The basic gist of the info in the CBO document from 2021 on projected costs for US Army Ground Combat vehicles is that M1A2 SEPv3 procurement is expected to run through until ~2025, which is when RDT&E for SEPv4 is expected to start prior to procurement. Looking further into the future, the CBO projects that another iteration of the M1A2 Abrams, specifically SEPv5 would start RDT&E some time in the early to mid-2040's. Now the US certainly could opt for something else in place of further development of the Abrams, particularly when one is considering that the CBO projection has M1A2 SEPv5 Abrams procurement going until 2050...

However, takeaways from all that is that the US does have some long-term plans that include continued development of the Abrams. That also implies the platform is not yet at or approaching the limits of what is felt as possible. Lastly, with both RDT&E for SEPv4 set to start between 2025-2030, as well as the previously provided links which indicated the US was looking at going from concepts for future armour towards setting requirements for capabilities some time this year, that strongly indicates to me that the US is not going to start procuring a replacement for the Abrams within the next few years. An Abrams replacement programme might indeed start this year, or even within the next couple of years, but it would be highly unlikely for such a programme to go from concept to completed, ready for production design of a complex combat system like an MBT, in just a couple of years. It might happen, but IMO that would be quite unlikely.

Also, elsewhere there had been suggestions to continue upgrading Australian M113's in place of current plans. This was IMO one of the logical fails being asserted as viable, since it basically managed to ignore the what and why of Australian armour procurement. The ADF is looking to acquire a fleet of IFV's to fight with/alongside Australian armour. What an IFV is likely capable of as well as the expected role, is quite different from that of even an upgraded, 1950's-era APC design. A later suggestion to continue using the M113 in role more akin to that of PMV also managed to ignore the reality that Australia already has a sizable fleet of PMV's with protection levels that equal or exceed that of the M113. That suggests that the poster either was/is unaware of what kit Australia has or wants, and/or how Australia uses or plans to use the kit. Attempting to argue for (or against) a platform is never going to end well when started from ignorance.

 

[Bob53]

Reading this article this morning and apparently everything has been sorted out with our special forces. ‘Pride and anger’: Elite Aussie soldiers’ overhaul — Herald Sun it’s a news corp article ..


‘Pride and anger’: Elite Australian Special Forces soldiers’ overhaul by Department of Defence

The Australian public can again have confidence in their elite Special Forces with a report card concluding more women, diversity and “humility” put the risk of unethical actions on the battlefield at “low”.

But morale is still wavering between “optimism and pride” and “anger and grief” ahead of some of their former comrades set to be charged with unlawful killings and senior commanders remaining unaccountable.

After more than two years of rewriting core aspects of their recruitment, training and operational make-up, our elite troops have been deemed by an independent oversight panel a different breed to that we deployed to Afghanistan.

Later in the article it states..

Introducing greater ethnic diversity in the makeup of Special Forces also reflects technological advances in warfare and the new likely theatre of operations from the Middle East to Indo Pacific.

I love that bolder sentence … what the hell this mean?,Introducing greater ethnic diversity in the makeup of Special Forces also reflects technological advances in warfare …..


….While I would applaud more women and diversity I hope it doesn’t lead to any quotas as that leads to a lowering of standards, Equal opportunity should be given equal opportunity to succeed, not unequal chance of success If your not one of the target demographics.

 

[Volkodav]

Reading this article this morning and apparently everything has been sorted out with our special forces. ‘Pride and anger’: Elite Aussie soldiers’ overhaul — Herald Sun it’s a news corp article ..


‘Pride and anger’: Elite Australian Special Forces soldiers’ overhaul by Department of Defence

The Australian public can again have confidence in their elite Special Forces with a report card concluding more women, diversity and “humility” put the risk of unethical actions on the battlefield at “low”.

But morale is still wavering between “optimism and pride” and “anger and grief” ahead of some of their former comrades set to be charged with unlawful killings and senior commanders remaining unaccountable.

After more than two years of rewriting core aspects of their recruitment, training and operational make-up, our elite troops have been deemed by an independent oversight panel a different breed to that we deployed to Afghanistan.

The ADF’s Special Forces, pulled largely from the SAS Regiment and 2nd Commando Regiment, have been under scrutiny since 2016 and very publicly from 2020 with the release of the damning Brereton report into alleged Afghan war crimes.

This has led to the overhaul of their training notably in ethics and the break-up of operational cliques with a more diverse team of operators and changes to deployment procedures making Special Forces and culture circa 2023 a new breed; at least 85 per cent of the current ranks never deployed to Afghanistan.

Critically, Defence has noted the “urgency” for organisational shift to also reflect the changing face of modern warfare and the more likely scenario our troops would be required to deploy closer to home in the Indo Pacific.

A report sent to Defence Minister Richard Marlesfrom the independent oversight panel appointed to ensure Defence’s move to restore confidence in our troops, has noted marked progress to positive change.

The report from the second half of last year released under Freedom of Information concluded the ethical risk to the SASR and Commandos was now “low” due to improved training, selection and reinforcement of the importance of laws governing combat.

According to the report, values in the ranks had been improved, notably the instilling and embedding of humility that “dramatically lowers the risk that the Special Force’s unique levels of capability will drive an unhealthy exceptionalism in future”.

The ethos of discipline and pursuit of excellence remained assured.

It said the Federal Government and public needed confidence in the ethical conduct of their deployed Special Forces and concluded and they “should” now have that confidence.

This was in part due to more diverse and changing team structures that would “significantly reduce the risk of ethical failure both by increasing diversity which is well established as a major positive factor and reducing the number of closed groups”.

Changes to pre-deployment psychological testing had been made, balance to the level and intensity of tours and respite to eliminate force fatigue and programs introduced to build better “mental health skills”.

“The panel acknowledges you can never eliminate ethical risk because of the very nature of humans as individuals and in groups operating under the pressure of a hostile or combat environment,” the report concluded.

“This means that occasionally and however good the training and culture, failure will occur and somebody will do the wrong thing … but there is no perfect answer … the panel’s view is that the Special Forces now operate at the level of ethical risk that should be regarded as acceptable.”

Introducing greater ethnic diversity in the makeup of Special Forces also reflects technological advances in warfare and the new likely theatre of operations from the Middle East to Indo Pacific.

That means having people in the ranks of and from the region, such as Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Indonesia and Malaysia, as an operational imperative. The Special Operations Command have been experimenting with new technologies, opening up the possibility of different operators working with the soldiers.

The Brereton inquiry made 191 findings related to alleged criminal misconduct in their ranks including unlawful killings of 39 individuals, two allegations of cruel treatment and significant other breaches of ADF professional standards.

Of the 143 recommendations the inquiry made around culture, command and accountability more than 100 have now been implemented. The Office of Special Investigator is investigating 23 former Special Forces individuals for 45 offences ranging from alleged murder to doctoring reports to cover up unlawful killings.

The SASR command declined a request by News Corp Australia to be interviewed or discuss transformations within their ranks

The “unhealthy tension” between the Perth-based SAS and Sydney-based Commandos had to a degree also lessened with more improved definitions of their roles.

Critically too have been command chain restructures with the Special Operations Command brought back into the ADF’s central command; its apparent operating as a separate enclave had been flagged in the Brereton report as having stymied oversight when reports of wrongdoing by troops were swirling.

I love that bolder sentence … what the hell this mean?,Introducing greater ethnic diversity in the makeup of Special Forces also reflects technological advances in warfare …..


….While I would applaud more women and diversity I hope it doesn’t lead to any quotas as that leads to a lowering of standards, Equal opportunity should be given equal opportunity to succeed, not unequal chance of success If your not one of the target demographics.

Diversity is often seen as "woke" posturing but the truth is diversity used to be a strength of the ADF.

One size doesn't fit all, every individual has their strengths and weaknesses. Special forces, more than other capabilities, benefit from teams made up of individuals with diverse skills and abilities.

 

[ngatimozart]

Not aimed at anyone in particular.

All of us have to abide by the relevant intellectual property laws and that is why we take copyright seriously. There are international laws that cover copyright and you are only allowed free use of no more than 10% of a work. You are also required to cite your sources if you are using someone else's work and that includes media articles. It is why we insist on sources being provided. If we don't the Forum can be accused of plagiarism and be subject to legal action.

 

[Bob53]

Not aimed at anyone in particular.

All of us have to abide by the relevant intellectual property laws and that is why we take copyright seriously. There are international laws that cover copyright and you are only allowed free use of no more than 10% of a work. You are also required to cite your sources if you are using someone else's work and that includes media articles. It is why we insist on sources being provided. If we don't the Forum can be accused of plagiarism and be subject to legal action.

Acknowledged. I cut and pasted all of it. Will modify.

 

[Stampede]

An interesting article from ASPI in the Strategist re the future of Japans armed attack / recon helicopters.

Japan ditches attack helicopters—will Australia do the same? | The Strategist

France invented the attack helicopter in 1956. Sixty-seven years later, Japan has decided that the idea has had its day. ‘Elimination of obsolete equipment’ is the cruelly decisive headline above photos of a Bell AH-1 ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Apparently their view is the future is for unmanned platforms.
Manned attack helicopters have had their day!

I don't have the answer but it's a significant call.

I wonder if other armed forces will mirror such a decision.


Cheers S

 

[old faithful]

IMO, Japan has a totally different need to Australia.
In our region, with the distances needed to cover, either from an amphib base or from land, a mix of manned helps and drones is needed.
I can kind of understand Japan's needs, but ours are a fair bit different. If we troops in an expeditionary capacity, we need manned air assets, air support, and we don't have Naval fast movers, but Army can provide rotary air support.