Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

Ok what if Indonesia isn’t on our side?,

Indonesia - In a major conflict either neutral, or reluctantly appeasing a major neighbour to her north.
Helping Australia or the USA would be doubtful.

Realistically we can only work with our own land and maritime domains as a constant and maybe
some of our regions pacific nation’s resources.

We equip ourselves with that reality in mind

Cheers S

 

[seaspear]

Maybe this agreement is a step to some form of more mutual defence agreement

A step, not a leap: Assessing the Indonesia-Australia Defence Cooperation Agreement | Lowy Institute

As a statement of neighbourly ties, the deal is a good one. But temper expectations.

www.lowyinstitute.org

 

[old faithful]

Then I would say we are truly imperilled. The darkest days of WWII would repeat.

Darwin is within range of a 1,000 km ballistic missile from the southern most Indonesian islands.

Yep, Yamenda, is an Indonesian territory, about 450km due north of Darwin.
People forget just how remote and isolated Darwin really is.
It's cheaper for me to fly to Bali than anywhere in Australia.
Also closer.
2.5 hours to Bali. About 5 hours to Sydney, 4 to Brisbane.
Even Cairns is a more expensive flight than a Bali flight is.
Next major town South of Darwin is Katherine, population 10,000, then there are some small towns between Katherine and Alice. Tennant Creek is 1000km from Darwin, Alice 1500km.
The entire population of the NT, is wait for it....about 250,000

 

[discodave]

Ok what if Indonesia isn’t on our side?,

Then, to paraphrase south park: we're going to have a bad time. Also, I started quoting those distances and geography facts in response to the HIMARS vs Strikemaster discussion, so I don't see what use HIMARS is in the situation you describe.

Indonesia isn't the only nation in SE asia either. The strait of Malacca has Malaysia (Butterworth) & Singapore on the other side, plus it's 'guarded' in the Indian ocean by islands belonging to India. Timor-Leste is right next to another choke point, and is notably not part of Indonesia, thanks in-part to the efforts of the ADF.

 

[Maranoa]

2 Cav's new configuration has been revealed. Log into Facebook

 

[Stampede]

2 Cav's new configuration has been revealed. Log into Facebook

For those of us not on facebook

A basic overview would be most appreciated

Regards S

 

[seaspear]

The Malacca strait seen a potential chokepoint is not guaranteed if potential developments go through

Analysis: Thailand’s proposed land bridge project easier than Kra Canal idea, but steep challenges await

The land bridge project is designed to provide a new trade route between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, potentially bypassing the Malacca Straits, by linking two deep sea ports on Thailand’s eastern and western coasts via a rail and road system.

www.channelnewsasia.com

Thai Land Bridge bid straddles a delicate US-China line - Asia Times

BANGKOK - Thailand hopes China will help build a US$2.8 billion, east-west highway and railway "Land Bridge" across the kingdom, linking the Andaman Sea

asiatimes.com

 

[FormerDirtDart]

For those of us not on facebook

A basic overview would be most appreciated

Regards S

All that is on Facebook is a link to Australian & NZ Defender Magazine, which is of course paywalled
So yeah, an overview would be grand
lol

 

[ADMk2]

JHF lifted this “scoop” from Army News of all places (without attribution, per usual for him). Then added a bunch of made up information, including squadron size (which he got wrong).

2 CAV is expanding to 4x sabre squadrons, with 2x Boxer CRV squadrons and 2x Abrams tank squadrons. A reduction from 3 tank squadrons (of 14 tanks) to 2x tank squadrons (of 18 tanks).

So not a huge change in the scheme of things.

https://www.armynewspaper.defence.gov.au/army-news/november-21-2024/flipbook/10/

 

[Stampede]

JHF lifted this “scoop” from Army News of all places (without attribution, per usual for him). Then added a bunch of made up information, including squadron size (which he got wrong).

2 CAV is expanding to 4x sabre squadrons, with 2x Boxer CRV squadrons and 2x Abrams tank squadrons. A reduction from 3 tank squadrons (of 14 tanks) to 2x tank squadrons (of 18 tanks).

So not a huge change in the scheme of things.

https://www.armynewspaper.defence.gov.au/army-news/november-21-2024/flipbook/10/

If true what does that mean for Sgn / Coy composition across the battalions and Brigades
Heavy, motorised and light
Army of threes now or an Army of twos????

Interesting stuff

The Brits operate 18 mbt Sqns
Some merit to be had.

However not sure how we plan to move such numbers plus the baggage train and other vehicle friends in the Maritime neighbourhood.

Three amphibious ships is all we have pending the arrival of the LCM and heavy

I would of thought greater multiples of small sqns would of been a better choice

4 X 12 not 2 X 18 tanks

anyway we’ll see how it pans out

cheers S

 

[Redlands18]

If true what does that mean for Sgn / Coy composition across the battalions and Brigades
Heavy, motorised and light
Army of threes now or an Army of twos????

Interesting stuff

The Brits operate 18 mbt Sqns
Some merit to be had.

However not sure how we plan to move such numbers plus the baggage train and other vehicle friends in the Maritime neighbourhood.

Three amphibious ships is all we have pending the arrival of the LCM and heavy

I would of thought greater multiples of small sqns would of been a better choice

4 X 12 not 2 X 18 tanks

anyway we’ll see how it pans out

cheers S

They might have 18 MBT Sqns, but current plans are only for 148 Challenger MBT to replace 227 Challenger 2 MBTs, so about the same number as Australia when you compare Army sizes, Barely enough to equip 18 Troops, let alone Sqns.

 

[Armchair]

They might have 18 MBT Sqns, but current plans are only for 148 Challenger MBT to replace 227 Challenger 2 MBTs, so about the same number as Australia when you compare Army sizes, Barely enough to equip 18 Troops, let alone Sqns.

I took Stampede to mean that the British Army squadrons each have 18 tanks (as now also envisaged for 2 CAV).
interesting to know what the CRV squadron sizes will be.

 

[Stampede]

I took Stampede to mean that the British Army squadrons each have 18 tanks (as now also envisaged for 2 CAV).
interesting to know what the CRV squadron sizes will be.

Yes to clarify
Tanks per Sqn not number of Sqns

Apparently we are only getting two Sqns
Unless there’s some other plan

36 tanks !!!!

Here’s a thought
It’s difficult to define one’s coastline depending on how you do the measuring.

Australia’s coastline is around 36000 km

Army recognises this and will evenly place one tank evenly around our coastline every one thousand km’s

it’s called AUKUS

Australia’s Unique Kinetic Unilateral System

Cheers S

ps

Can’t wait to see what the IFV Sqns look like

 

[Takao]

If true what does that mean for Sgn / Coy composition across the battalions and Brigades
Heavy, motorised and light
Army of threes now or an Army of twos????

It's an unpopular view, but except for RAInf, we've been an Army of two's for a while. And in most of our key capabilities we are an Army on ones.

Interesting stuff

The Brits operate 18 mbt Sqns
Some merit to be had.

However not sure how we plan to move such numbers plus the baggage train and other vehicle friends in the Maritime neighbourhood.

Three amphibious ships is all we have pending the arrival of the LCM and heavy

I would of thought greater multiples of small sqns would of been a better choice

4 X 12 not 2 X 18 tanks

anyway we’ll see how it pans out

cheers S

It doesn't matter. The indivisible number for armour is 2, although the realistic indivisible number is 4. That's a Troop.

A Tp of tanks matches well with a Coy of infantry making a Combat Team. We fight as a combined arms force, which means our building blocks are CTs, not Coy/Sqn. If anything, an 18 Tk Sqn means that there is a left-over Tp when the Regt is matched with a Bn, allowing a heavy CT to be formed, or another Coy to be brought into the Bde providing more CTs, and hence provide more flexibility.

The only specific problem with 12 tanks is that you have no flexibility with the Sqn HQ - they have to fight in a CT (3x Tp of 4 tk versus 4x Tp of 4 + SHQ). That reduces the C2 flexibility available to the CO or Bde Comd.

Remember, a barracks structure is irrelevant to a war fighting structure. As long as there is an even number of tank, it'll be fine.

 

[Armchair]

Can’t wait to see what the IFV Sqns look like

Just another note.
the IFVs will be in companies when they finally arrive.
Will they seek to squeeze out 4 companies in an army of twos?

 

[ADMk2]

If true what does that mean for Sgn / Coy composition across the battalions and Brigades
Heavy, motorised and light
Army of threes now or an Army of twos????

Interesting stuff

The Brits operate 18 mbt Sqns
Some merit to be had.

However not sure how we plan to move such numbers plus the baggage train and other vehicle friends in the Maritime neighbourhood.

Three amphibious ships is all we have pending the arrival of the LCM and heavy

I would of thought greater multiples of small sqns would of been a better choice

4 X 12 not 2 X 18 tanks

anyway we’ll see how it pans out

cheers S

We have an Army of ones’s - (some are 0.5’s…) again. Which the Government has chosen to call a “focused force”.

It’s focused alright. Focused on consuming the least amount of budget possible, so the Government can buy nuclear subs with no budget increase...

And in the process distort our force structure to a level never seen before.

 

[ADMk2]

Just another note.
the IFVs will be in companies when they finally arrive.
Will they seek to squeeze out 4 companies in an army of twos?

No. That would be silly. More like an Army of twos (rifle companies that is…).

 

[Stampede]

It's an unpopular view, but except for RAInf, we've been an Army of two's for a while. And in most of our key capabilities we are an Army on ones.



It doesn't matter. The indivisible number for armour is 2, although the realistic indivisible number is 4. That's a Troop.

A Tp of tanks matches well with a Coy of infantry making a Combat Team. We fight as a combined arms force, which means our building blocks are CTs, not Coy/Sqn. If anything, an 18 Tk Sqn means that there is a left-over Tp when the Regt is matched with a Bn, allowing a heavy CT to be formed, or another Coy to be brought into the Bde providing more CTs, and hence provide more flexibility.

The only specific problem with 12 tanks is that you have no flexibility with the Sqn HQ - they have to fight in a CT (3x Tp of 4 tk versus 4x Tp of 4 + SHQ). That reduces the C2 flexibility available to the CO or Bde Comd.

Remember, a barracks structure is irrelevant to a war fighting structure. As long as there is an even number of tank, it'll be fine.

If I recall back in the 80s a troop had three MBTs,
4 troops to a SQN one of which is the SHQ

We are getting 75 gun tanks
Around a third will be for attrition , service and spares leaving 50 odd units for service.

Enough for four active smaller Squadrons.

Been able to deploy and equally importantly sustain a capability has more appeal than a larger pair of tank Sqns


Probably easier to scale up an existing squadron than raising a new one with limited time.

thoughts

Regards S

 

[PHOTOGRAPHER]

For those of us not on facebook

A basic overview would be most appreciated

Regards S

From the ANZ Defender article.
Modern Anzacs: Defence News

"Under the new Order of Battle, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment will field approximately 36 M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams (two MBT squadrons each fielding 18 M1A2s) and six to 12 M88A2 HERCULES heavy recovery vehicles and approximately 40 Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles. "

"The 3rd Brigade's artillery regiment, the Lavarack Barracks based 4th Field Regiment will convert from its inservice fleet of 155mm/39 calibre M777A2 Lightweight Towed Howitzers (LTH) to the new armoured 155mm/52 calibre Huntsman Self Propelled Artillery System composed of AS9 Huntsman Self Propelled Artillery and AS10 Armoured Artillery Resupply Vehicles (AARV). "

"A single mechanised infantry battalion, the Lavarack Barracks' based 3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment (3RAR), will fight with the armoured spearhead and heavy combat engineering elements re equipping from the inservice M113AS4 Armoured Personnel Carrier to the next generation AS21 Redback Infantry Fighting Vehicle from 2027. "

Hope this post doesnt break any site rules. Mods?

 

[Armchair]

No. That would be silly. More like an Army of twos (rifle companies that is…).

I agree that they probably won’t do it (especially if that battalion also incorporates engineering elements as the ADM article quoted by photographer suggests, thanks photographer) but can you explain why it would it be silly, please?