Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Mick73]

Yes, the touchy feelly, PC, don't ask-don't yell modern society in which we live these days, have changed thing around.
We no longer have an enemy, we have opposing forces.
Fighting Patrols (move carefully without damaging the the enviroment and if you find the bad people with guns, check your ROE's and consult legal for advice patrols ) are now complete with a risk assessment lodged before orders are issued.
Standing patrols are now deemed hazardous without hotbox meals and and a minimum of 8hrs sleep (OH&S requirements).
No using loud, abusive words towards your opposing force as it might upset someone in your section.
And of coarse...don't conduct a booby trap search on a fallen body...as it may upset someone in your embedded media crew and thus be forced to tell everyone what really happens in war, but if the grenade does go off and wounds them, they will write how lucky were to have survived and it might buy them a special spot on the today show or what have you. And praise their experience as what save their lives.
In the Police they use as many rounds needed for the treat to stop and in the Army you can only shoot if you are sure you won't get a UD charge because someone was only joking about yelling "contact front" and you have used all of the steps described on your "red card".

Apart from that nothing has changed

 

[rickshaw]

Like carrying a note book/ folder and pen. If you look like you are busy, the chance of some other poor sod getting a random "Emu Bob" job for fun.

I once had a fellow digger bet me that he could go an entire day on exercise without doing any work. He won the bet. All he did was wander from pillar to post carrying a bucket. He'd stop, chat, have a smoke with someone (if possible) and then move onto the next person. Not one officer/SNCO asked him what he was doing. He never filled the bucket. All he did was look like he was doing something and not one of them twigged. :lol:

 

[rickshaw]

Yes, the touchy feelly, PC, don't ask-don't yell modern society in which we live these days, have changed thing around.
We no longer have an enemy, we have opposing forces.
Fighting Patrols (move carefully without damaging the the enviroment and if you find the bad people with guns, check your ROE's and consult legal for advice patrols ) are now complete with a risk assessment lodged before orders are issued.
Standing patrols are now deemed hazardous without hotbox meals and and a minimum of 8hrs sleep (OH&S requirements).
No using loud, abusive words towards your opposing force as it might upset someone in your section.
And of coarse...don't conduct a booby trap search on a fallen body...as it may upset someone in your embedded media crew and thus be forced to tell everyone what really happens in war, but if the grenade does go off and wounds them, they will write how lucky were to have survived and it might buy them a special spot on the today show or what have you. And praise their experience as what save their lives.
In the Police they use as many rounds needed for the treat to stop and in the Army you can only shoot if you are sure you won't get a UD charge because someone was only joking about yelling "contact front" and you have used all of the steps described on your "red card".

Apart from that nothing has changed

In otherwords, when the pooh hits the fan, all that goes out the window and everybody does what they need to and the media are kept out of sight until after the contact is finished?

 

[bigears]

6.8mm

As a recently retired RAinf dig i think the whole calibre should be changed to 6.8mm, the basic inf weapons don't have the penetrating power for the walls of buildings and the size of the projectile isn't doing enough damage if a vital area is not hit, the minimi in 6.8mm would be a very nice section light machine gun.

 

[rickshaw]

Mmm, I understand that 5.56x45mm SS109 has more than adequate penetration characteristics for buildings but the reason why some ballisticians are suggesting a change to 6 or 6.8mm calibre is that it has poor wounding characteristics in comparison. I've seen 5.56x45mm chew up double brick walls at range (<100m), so I'm not sure why people believe it can't penetrate walls. A larger calibre appears to have greater utility but it relies it seems more upon mass than velocity to achieve its wound effects, particularly if spun at high rotational speeds (one of the reasons for small arms rounds "shattering" appears to be the torsional stresses imparted on the round when it transits from one medium [air] to another denser one [flesh] however I could be wrong on the theory on that one, I admit).

 

[Aussie Digger]

Mmm, I understand that 5.56x45mm SS109 has more than adequate penetration characteristics for buildings but the reason why some ballisticians are suggesting a change to 6 or 6.8mm calibre is that it has poor wounding characteristics in comparison. I've seen 5.56x45mm chew up double brick walls at range (<100m), so I'm not sure why people believe it can't penetrate walls. A larger calibre appears to have greater utility but it relies it seems more upon mass than velocity to achieve its wound effects, particularly if spun at high rotational speeds (one of the reasons for small arms rounds "shattering" appears to be the torsional stresses imparted on the round when it transits from one medium [air] to another denser one [flesh] however I could be wrong on the theory on that one, I admit).

I don't see what's so wrong with 7.62 x51mm. Sure it gets heavy, but it certainly gets the job done (it's the round we ALL turn to when 5.56mm doesn't cut it).

Compared to 6.8mm, I can't see that 0.8 of a mm per round making ALL that much difference weight wise and no-one to the best of my knowledge has ever complained about the lack of penetration, range or "wound effects" from 7.62mm NATO rounds. Indeed it's probably STILL the most popular Sniper and GPMG round (in the West) at least...

 

[Waylander]

Why not stay with a mix?

Use 7,62mm for GPMGs, Sniper Rifles and DMRs.

Use 5,56mm for the normal assault rifles (Or the short versions of assault rifles) and SAWs.

I have read that the Marines in Falluja had not many problems with 5,56mm. Especially for MOUT were huge amounts of fire are necessary the weight of 5,56mm allowed them to carry what they needed.

 

[Tasman]

Why not stay with a mix?

Use 7,62mm for GPMGs, Sniper Rifles and DMRs.

Use 5,56mm for the normal assault rifles (Or the short versions of assault rifles) and SAWs.

I have read that the Marines in Falluja had not many problems with 5,56mm. Especially for MOUT were huge amounts of fire are necessary the weight of 5,56mm allowed them to carry what they needed.

Both calibres seem to me to do their job well. The advantage of a mid calibre would be that it could perhaps replace both the 5.56mm and the 7.62x51 but there is a danger that, as a 'jack of all trades,' we could end up with something that do most things reasonably well but nothing really well. At the low end soldiers would not be able to carry nearly as much ammo and at the high end it would lack the firepower of the 7.62mm.

In addition I think that in Australia's case the army would not want to adopt a calibre that is out of kilter with its allies as this would cause supply difficulties in coalition operations.

Cheers

 

[rickshaw]

I don't see what's so wrong with 7.62 x51mm. Sure it gets heavy, but it certainly gets the job done (it's the round we ALL turn to when 5.56mm doesn't cut it).

Compared to 6.8mm, I can't see that 0.8 of a mm per round making ALL that much difference weight wise and no-one to the best of my knowledge has ever complained about the lack of penetration, range or "wound effects" from 7.62mm NATO rounds. Indeed it's probably STILL the most popular Sniper and GPMG round (in the West) at least...

Well, actually, ballisticians have often complained about the poor wounding characteristics of 7.62x51mm rounds in comparison to 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm rounds. As for weight differences it becomes substantial with the load carried by most infantrymen.

 

[rickshaw]

Both calibres seem to me to do their job well. The advantage of a mid calibre would be that it could perhaps replace both the 5.56mm and the 7.62x51 but there is a danger that, as a 'jack of all trades,' we could end up with something that do most things reasonably well but nothing really well. At the low end soldiers would not be able to carry nearly as much ammo and at the high end it would lack the firepower of the 7.62mm.

In addition I think that in Australia's case the army would not want to adopt a calibre that is out of kilter with its allies as this would cause supply difficulties in coalition operations.

Cheers

Sums up one of the major arguments against 6 - 6.8mm rounds very well, Tasman. You're also right, our calibre choices are largely determined overseas. We can only really determine the weapon we will utilise to fire what ever round NATO or the US determines will be used. I think we chose well with the Steyr. Hopefully our next choice will be as good.

 

[Tasman]

Retention Bonuses for Australian Army - First Round

The Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, yesterday announced details of new bonuses aimed at attracting soldiers to re-enlist:

As part of the Australian Government’s $1.0 billion package to overhaul ADF retention and recruitment, I am pleased to announce that Army has commenced paying soldiers two types of retention bonuses to underpin the growth in Army workforce numbers.



Since Friday, 16 March 2007, the Chief of Army has commenced the offer of the Army Expansion Rank Retention and Completion Bonus and the Army Critical Employment Category Bonus. These bonuses are targeted financial incentives to employment groups and individual serving Army members who hold high-value skills and experience that must be retained to meet the people capabilities required by the Hardened and Networked Army and the Enhanced Land Force initiatives.



Army’s two new bonuses are:



· Army Expansion Rank Retention and Completion Bonus. This bonus is based on military ranks critical to Army workforce growth and will be offered in two rounds, once in 2007 and once in 2008. Initial one-year retention bonuses of $10,000 followed by completion bonuses of $30,000 for three years additional service for selected and experienced corporals, sergeants, captains and majors. There are 5000 Army personnel who are potentially eligible for this year’s offer round and 1600 for the second next year.



· Army Critical Employment Category Retention Bonus. This bonus is based on the Army personnel who hold high-value skills and experience in designated critical employment categories, and whose loss could impact on ADF capability, training or operations. Retention bonuses of up to $25,000 for two years additional service will be offered each year until the category has recovered its personnel strength. The first categories for this bonus are Engineering Plant Operators, Electronic Warfare Operators, Petroleum Operators, and Engineering Construction Supervisors. There are 380 Army personnel in these categories who are potentially eligible for this year’s offer round.



Army is continuing to develop the policy guidelines and implementation arrangements for two additional incentives:



· Bonuses to encourage currently serving soldiers to undertake trade training and transfer to technical trade employment groups critical to Army workforce expansion. Retention bonuses of $17,500 or $25,000 depending upon the personnel strength of the trade group.



· Allowances to encourage selected personnel to undertake military instructor postings and recognise the critical roles they play in delivering world class military training. Allowance of $5000 paid upon completion of each year of instructional posting.



The total value of the Army retention bonus program is $193.5 million over the next seven years.



Retention bonuses will only be used as a short-term measure until other major career and remuneration reforms are in place.



Army Headquarters will monitor the progress of these incentives to gauge their retention success and to ensure that Army personnel are able to easily and quickly access their benefits. Payments for this year’s round of offers will be made before the end of this financial year for those Army personnel who act quickly.

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMintpl.cfm?CurrentId=6502

This is described as the first round of retention bonuses. I think it looks promising and hopefully will begin to address the retention problem in the Australian Army.

Cheers

 

[Smythstar]

Maybe we could modify a couple of leopards with extra armour, birdcages, RWS, dozerblade and 120mm brech loading mortar or 165mm demolition gun for close infantry support - Urban warfare - Engineering tasks.

Its a little lighter than the Abrams but I suppose it would be an expensive option?

 

[rickshaw]

Maybe we could modify a couple of leopards with extra armour, birdcages, RWS, dozerblade and 120mm brech loading mortar or 165mm demolition gun for close infantry support - Urban warfare - Engineering tasks.

Its a little lighter than the Abrams but I suppose it would be an expensive option?

It would be an excellent and far more useful alternative to the M1. It could be deployed more easily overseas and would have a more useful weapon for use in our principal theatre of operations where infantry support is more important than anti-tank work.

 

[rickshaw]

BTW, in case this was missed, the Army has a new recruiting poster:

27 March 2007
Army poster competition makes its mark

The Minister for Defence, the Hon Dr Brendan Nelson, and the Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Peter Leahy, announced the winner of a recent Army recruiting poster competition at a reception held at Russell Offices, Canberra.

The competition, an initiative of the Chief of Army, encouraged Australian soldiers to bring new and original ideas to the recruiting campaign to boost Army numbers.

Designed by Private David Eason, the winning poster features an image of World War One veteran Marcel Caux resting before the ANZAC Day march in 2004. His picture is superimposed over a photo of a contemporary soldier on duty in the Middle East.

Private David Eason is a young Army Reserve supply operator at 8 Combat Services Support Battalion, Sydney. David also works as a lifeguard at the Sydney Olympic Park Aquatic Centre in Homebush.

So, what do people think? I like it.

 

[Tasman]

BTW, in case this was missed, the Army has a new recruiting poster:

So, what do people think? I like it.

I agree with you rickshaw. There is something stirring about the old digger calling on the present generation to do its bit.

Cheers

 

[Smythstar]

Yeah that poster is a cracker!

On the defence site there are about 6 or 7 others that were shortlisted and also on display and a couple of those are really good as well, the winning one deserves it though really goes for the underlieing emotive angle.

Interesting that these came from diggers themselves and I think the result is a lot more effective than the run of the mill result they usually get from some media company.

 

[sparta]

from my experience hydra locking can be solved from performing IA in the m4 or m16 although just by tipping the barrel and sometimes if you have to fire it coming out of the water it wont cause a massive breach on you. the f88 needs to have the gas plug removed so excess water can be displaced or the weapon vacumned sealed in a bag for any amphib work. the m4 doesn't need such prep as the gas system is pistonless.

 

[Todjaeger]

BTW, in case this was missed, the Army has a new recruiting poster:

So, what do people think? I like it.

I have to say, the poster creates a powerful image. It manages to display a sense of both duty and service, from the past and present.

In the US, the troops who fought in World War II have been called, "the Greatest Generation." For Australia, I think "the Greatest Generation" might well be those who served in the Great War. By including a picture of a veteran of that war, it reminds people of the trials a young Australia and her military underwent.

:australia

-Cheers

 

[lobbie111]

Sorry if this is completely off topic but has anyone else noticed the standardized ammunition calibers it goes 5.56, 7.62, 12.7 (50.), 20mm, 25mm, 30mm, 40mm But I think if anything something would benefit from being in between 50. and 20mm it would seem logical like the Russian 14.5mm or a 15mm.

But as for the Steyr replacement issue, granted the Steyr has its flaws some of them on occasions being fatal but with improvements and upgrading the weapon will become more lethal (to the enemy) and safer but even though the flaws and no offense intended the Americans have more training accidents just f***ing around with their M16's and until I see some hard evidence of the safety record being better of that of the Steyr I would take the Steyr into battle any day.

 

[sparta]

well when you experience the way that they clear the weapons you will know why and when you are at the pointy end of the stick and see they way they fight you can see accidents coming like a smack in the head, although they are improving but still have a long way to go in warfighting readiness.
great at combined arms