Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[bullpuppy]

The 5.56mm SS109 round weighs about 62 grains. The 6.8 weighs areound 115-120 grains. It is a much heavier round with better penetration.

However, the AUSteyr would need to be re-engineered to accomodate this larger caliber and your ammo factories would have to switch over to making the new round.

As always, it is difficult to change calibers when one has already been established. It has certainly be done, but there is a lot of hesitation by the government/military.

The 6.8mm round is not in major production in the US, and all factories that make and sell mil ammo in the US are cranking out as much 5.56mm as possible for the ongoing wars.

The easiest thing to do with the 5.56mm is to go to the heavier 77 grain MK262 round, which has proven to put people down much down more effectively in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The only thing is that to use it at longer distances (beyond 100 yards) you really need a 1 in 7" twist in your barrel's rifling as opposed to the 1 in 9" twist that the AUG comes with. But given the ease of switching barrels with an AUG, this should not be a problem to build a new barrel and have the end user pop it in himself.

Do a google search on mk262 5.56mm ammo, as I do not have enough posts here to be allowed to post links.

 

[Waylander]

Everyone who suggests a heavier calibre, have you fired it in full auto?
I think I am not really weak (I am not a bodybuilder either ) but I was not able to hold for example the G3 on a target during rapid fire.
And this was during training. I don't want to knwo how it is during real battle.

 

[sparta]

yes and from my experience you don't, although with training and the correct weapon body posture it is possible to have controlled COBM multiple hits to 100m easily out to 50m.
and snap shooting to around 125m 2nd round hits on running targets is achievable with effective training.
weapon body posture i mean: weapon high cyclic rate(800-1200rpm)short burst(2-3rds)body posture: strong posture both eyes open relax firing hand use the paint brush method as in shotgunning.

 

[Waylander]

Than you are good or I am bad.

A 5.56mm weapon is much easier to handle during full auto and while also a 7.62mm weapon can be handled with good and excessive training it is not nearly in the same league.

And I am talking of fast snapshots were you do not always have the best firing position and are under full stress.

 

[Smythstar]

We could call it a Mud Crab?

Yep an Infantry support, Engineer, Urban/Jungle (close) warefare armoured vehicle that can be fairly easily deployed on little islands etc to our north and can close in and scrap with the enemy at close quarters with the Infantry (ie a dedicated Inf support assett) and survive, like the old concept of the Assault Gun would be just the ticket in any hot war in the Jungles to our north.
120mm mortar or some big bore (has the 165mm got a cannister round?) low pressure direct fire demo gun, several remotely controlled weapon stations with 25mm or .50 or 40mm grenade launchers, big dozer blade with mine ripper tynes birdcage extra armour and a very nice addition would be a coaxial flame thrower like the TO-55 which has a range of about 200 meters.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yep an Infantry support, Engineer, Urban/Jungle (close) warefare armoured vehicle that can be fairly easily deployed on little islands etc to our north and can close in and scrap with the enemy at close quarters with the Infantry (ie a dedicated Inf support assett) and survive, like the old concept of the Assault Gun would be just the ticket in any hot war in the Jungles to our north.
120mm mortar or some big bore (has the 165mm got a cannister round?) low pressure direct fire demo gun, several remotely controlled weapon stations with 25mm or .50 or 40mm grenade launchers, big dozer blade with mine ripper tynes birdcage extra armour and a very nice addition would be a coaxial flame thrower like the TO-55 which has a range of about 200 meters.

Could be useful, but it ain't gonna happen. If money were available for additional armoured capacity, than the addition of a light-medium direct fire cannon (25-40mm calibre) on the M113AS3/4 would be the most cost effective fire support enhancement option, followed by a dedicated IFV to replace M113...

However the money's just not there for it...

 

[Smythstar]

Yes no doubt there wont be any money for it.

Its typical of most countries (not just Australia) to only barely cover the basics, when something happens and the first hundred come home in boxes is when something might be done, just look at the differences to vehicles at the begining of a campaign's to what they look like at the end, its always the same, Hummer 2003 vs Hummer 2006.

Short sightedness costs lives and only then things change unless you have fore site to fore see what will be needed or learn lessons from the past or from others who are in combat continually like Israel.
Bushmaster a prime example of this where we learned from South Africas/ Rhodesias experiance in bush wars - similar environment to ours, and predicting a widespread mine/ied threat, and if ADI hadnt pissed around and waited for hand outs it would have been ready years ago and perfect for the Iraq war and would probably in the middle of building 20 000 for the Yanks right now but anyway it will still prove highly usefull even beyond our expectations ie Afghanistan by us and the Dutch where its role is expanding from battle taxi.

It seems as almost everyone here knows where we will be fighting for the most part in the future we may have the occasional major adventure or misadventure far out of our region but for the most part heres where its going to be, no different to WW11 or Vietnam hard costly Jungle scraping where there is no quick shiney victory but lots of brutal slug which would most likely go on for considerable time whatever the situation is.

It seems to me a great loss of opportunity to scrap 70 leopard hulls when we could for very little cost make up something like suggested before perhaps only 25 or 30 and have the rest for spares indeed they could be put away in a shed somewhere and taken out when things get hot or overly excitable OS on whatever adventure and have several for training.
They would be lighter than the Abrams and slightly more deployable, be far more usefull than the Abrams in close country, have more efficient and fixable diesel engines we have parts for already and 20 years experience of fixing.

Commence Rant -
To forget the lessons of New Guinea, Borneo and the Tet Offensive will cost us eventually dearly in blood and to waste a resource we already have seems almost criminal.
Rant over -

Some novel inventions that also may prove highly usefull.
Armoured D9 D10 or D11 would prove highly usefull in battle and peace keeping/reconstruction tasks.
Situationaly aware tanks with ability to fire close in weapons from inside armour.
P2 - VBL - Cobra type vehicles with a dedicated armour shell replacing thin skinned Landrover types, also trucks and Re Sup rehicles should I think be mine and bullet proof as standard, this would all be more expensive but would save us many tears in the future.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes no doubt there wont be any money for it.

Its typical of most countries (not just Australia) to only barely cover the basics, when something happens and the first hundred come home in boxes is when something might be done, just look at the differences to vehicles at the begining of a campaign's to what they look like at the end, its always the same, Hummer 2003 vs Hummer 2006.

Short sightedness costs lives and only then things change unless you have fore site to fore see what will be needed or learn lessons from the past or from others who are in combat continually like Israel.
Bushmaster a prime example of this where we learned from South Africas/ Rhodesias experiance in bush wars - similar environment to ours, and predicting a widespread mine/ied threat, and if ADI hadnt pissed around and waited for hand outs it would have been ready years ago and perfect for the Iraq war and would probably in the middle of building 20 000 for the Yanks right now but anyway it will still prove highly usefull even beyond our expectations ie Afghanistan by us and the Dutch where its role is expanding from battle taxi.

It seems as almost everyone here knows where we will be fighting for the most part in the future we may have the occasional major adventure or misadventure far out of our region but for the most part heres where its going to be, no different to WW11 or Vietnam hard costly Jungle scraping where there is no quick shiney victory but lots of brutal slug which would most likely go on for considerable time whatever the situation is.

It seems to me a great loss of opportunity to scrap 70 leopard hulls when we could for very little cost make up something like suggested before perhaps only 25 or 30 and have the rest for spares indeed they could be put away in a shed somewhere and taken out when things get hot or overly excitable OS on whatever adventure and have several for training.
They would be lighter than the Abrams and slightly more deployable, be far more usefull than the Abrams in close country, have more efficient and fixable diesel engines we have parts for already and 20 years experience of fixing.

Commence Rant -
To forget the lessons of New Guinea, Borneo and the Tet Offensive will cost us eventually dearly in blood and to waste a resource we already have seems almost criminal.
Rant over -

Some novel inventions that also may prove highly usefull.
Armoured D9 D10 or D11 would prove highly usefull in battle and peace keeping/reconstruction tasks.
Situationaly aware tanks with ability to fire close in weapons from inside armour.
P2 - VBL - Cobra type vehicles with a dedicated armour shell replacing thin skinned Landrover types, also trucks and Re Sup rehicles should I think be mine and bullet proof as standard, this would all be more expensive but would save us many tears in the future.

ADF seems to agree with you. Most of those capabilities are lready on order or planned.

The Armoured Buldozer RFT was let a short while ago and will acquire armoured D7 and D9 bulldozers.

"Survivability enhancement kits" (SEK's) have been acquired providing "armoured plant" equipment for operations in Afghanistan seen here:

http://www.defence.gov.au/opslipper/images/gallery/20070309/index.htm

Project Overlander (land rover and "light, medium and heavy" truck replacement project) is placing a considerable focus upon vehicles with built in survivability or the easy addition of SEK's.

Australia's next "basic" B vehicle (ie: Landrover replacement) will have the ability to be armoured almost to the same level as Bushmasters. Given that we have also increased our Bushmaster acquisition by another 143 vehicles, over the original 299 ordered and may order yet more (we had total options on around 750 vehicles at the same price as the original batch) our protection measures are quite extensive for our own forces. Part of the "Hardening" initiative...

Many of those M1A1 features, were fitted to our M1A1's. I'd imagine, if necessary the RWS system and other measure would be fitted in future...

 

[Smythstar]

Its very good to see we are heading down the right track.

I also belive the Abrams (Tank fleet) a good one although my prefference initially would have been Leo 2 for the reasons of lower cost (I remember someone saying we could get approx 120 A5s for the same price?) + Diesel engine + L55 HV gun as we are no DU.
However I also think the reasoning of no hull ammo Abrams equals more survivability to be sound although I think we need more (100 or so) and they should have a standard diesel powerpack, and L55 could be fitted to it if required and like you say RWS like crows and hunter killer sight also if reqd.

Therefore the addidion of a Jungle Slugger/Inf support/Assault gun in my supposition would be a supplementary assett, not instead of Abrams.

Cost means as you say this wont happen but mark me down for thinking it should, we have the hulls already and would save the Abrams for continental defense which is its primary role and where it should mainly stay.

I agree the spending on defence is a god send with this govt and recognise it could very soon come to an end, and therefore therefore there isnt much anyone can quibble about in this regard although one can argue this is simply replacing things we already had or were taken away by other govts so we shouldnt feel to spoilt and that the soon to be coming capability should be seen as a minimum standard from now on.

Nevertheless im pro Jungle slugger!

 

[Todjaeger]

Its very good to see we are heading down the right track.

I also belive the Abrams (Tank fleet) a good one although my prefference initially would have been Leo 2 for the reasons of lower cost (I remember someone saying we could get approx 120 A5s for the same price?) + Diesel engine + L55 HV gun as we are no DU.
However I also think the reasoning of no hull ammo Abrams equals more survivability to be sound although I think we need more (100 or so) and they should have a standard diesel powerpack, and L55 could be fitted to it if required and like you say RWS like crows and hunter killer sight also if reqd.

Therefore the addidion of a Jungle Slugger/Inf support/Assault gun in my supposition would be a supplementary assett, not instead of Abrams.

Cost means as you say this wont happen but mark me down for thinking it should, we have the hulls already and would save the Abrams for continental defense which is its primary role and where it should mainly stay.

I agree the spending on defence is a god send with this govt and recognise it could very soon come to an end, and therefore therefore there isnt much anyone can quibble about in this regard although one can argue this is simply replacing things we already had or were taken away by other govts so we shouldnt feel to spoilt and that the soon to be coming capability should be seen as a minimum standard from now on.

Nevertheless im pro Jungle slugger!

For discussion of suitable light armoured vehicles for the ASEAN/South Pacific region, one might take a gander at this thread...
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5281&highlight=zealand
Granted, the discussion is about ways to inprove the NZDF, but the discussion about possible armoured vehicles took into account regional terrain it would be likely to operate in, as well as being able to complement the ADF. If Australia were to go the route of adding a light vehicle for fire support, I'd lean towards a CV90-family vehicle, armed with a 120mm AMOS with direct fire capability.

However, I don't see this happening, at least not anytime soon. Besides, there are other things I think the ADF should purchase before adding a MGS to the inventory. A dedicated IFV would be near the top of my list. As would SP artillery that is able to fire advanced/guided munitions.

-Cheers

 

[Waylander]

You would have got no L/55 if you would have gone with Leopard 2A5. The L/55 is implemented from A6 on.

BTW, are there plans to at least motorize nearly the whole army? Seems for me like a have to with such huge distances you have in Australia.

 

[Smythstar]

Yes you are indeed totally correct.

If we had of gone Leopard 2 I think most if not all would have been the mine resistant model of A6s (L55) due to our no DU, but the A5s were cheaper and we could have bought 120 for the same price as 59 M1s (according to someone I cant remember and im only assumeing knows what they are talking about) although some PSO version A5s would be the most handy all-rounder and probably best suited to us but im totaly unaware of its price.
Sorry I didnt express this very well in the above article.

Waylander you were discussing recon with someone several pages ago and I think there may have been some missunderstanding as I remeber years ago and things may well have changed since but I was taught that Russians and Germans were proponents of recon by force ie you send a small unit out with heavy fighting elements attached to hoot around full belt out in front of the main force until you hit something - by shooting at whatever you hit you see by its return fire what the nature of the force is.
British, Australians etc follow a different concept of recon by stealth where we sneak around and pretend to be a bush and silently watch whats happening and report back, this may have been a source of confusion and again things may well have changed since?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Its very good to see we are heading down the right track.

I also belive the Abrams (Tank fleet) a good one although my prefference initially would have been Leo 2 for the reasons of lower cost (I remember someone saying we could get approx 120 A5s for the same price?) + Diesel engine + L55 HV gun as we are no DU.
However I also think the reasoning of no hull ammo Abrams equals more survivability to be sound although I think we need more (100 or so) and they should have a standard diesel powerpack, and L55 could be fitted to it if required and like you say RWS like crows and hunter killer sight also if reqd.

Therefore the addidion of a Jungle Slugger/Inf support/Assault gun in my supposition would be a supplementary assett, not instead of Abrams.

Cost means as you say this wont happen but mark me down for thinking it should, we have the hulls already and would save the Abrams for continental defense which is its primary role and where it should mainly stay.

I agree the spending on defence is a god send with this govt and recognise it could very soon come to an end, and therefore therefore there isnt much anyone can quibble about in this regard although one can argue this is simply replacing things we already had or were taken away by other govts so we shouldnt feel to spoilt and that the soon to be coming capability should be seen as a minimum standard from now on.

Nevertheless im pro Jungle slugger!

The problem comes back to being: if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, what is it?

Your jungle slugger will need to be tracked, offer heavy firepower and the ability to withstand fire in return.

Adding these up and it's pretty hard to see why you wouldn't simply deploy M1A1's...

 

[Smythstar]

Because it will sink in the mud, haha no I know what you mean.

We have the hulls and wont cost much and be far more suitable, and free up the Abrams for what it was designed for tank vs tank.

Its a hard sell I know.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Because it will sink in the mud, haha no I know what you mean.

We have the hulls and wont cost much and be far more suitable, and free up the Abrams for what it was designed for tank vs tank.

Its a hard sell I know.

I'd rather see the Leopards modified and used to provide the "armoured combat engineering vehicles" Army's Combat Engineer Regiments are supposed to have on paper, yet have never actually existed...

An armoured bridgelayer, an armoured mine clearer (that can move at more than 6k's per hour) OH the possibilities...

 

[Waylander]

We are getting away from the recon by force.
With the introduction of the Fennek and the annhilation of the heavy components (No Leo II there anymore) we have a much lighter recon force.

In fact the armored recon units (Panzeraufklärer) were melted together with our other recon forces now forming a joint commando.
So our main recon is done by UAVs of different sizes, Helicopters, Luchs and Fennek scout vehicles, deep recon infantry and every combat bn has a recon platoon (light motorized infantry) attached to the 1st company.
Recon by force is still part of our doctrine but the heavy forces are no longer attached directly but are send directly by the armored/mechinf bns.

As to the costs of a Leopard IIPSO. There is no final price as long as I know. The decision by the Bundeswehr about the implemention of the PSO is expected at the end of this year so there we should see some prices.

BTW, according to some of my sources the canadians are already Munster (Home of our armor school) and train on the Leopard IIA6M they are goping to lease for Afghanistan.

Has somebody an idea about my question if it is planned to motorize every part of your army?

 

[Smythstar]

Id like to see the whole Army be able to transport itself, much as I used to enjoy 40km forced marches in 49 degree celcius temperatures with a 50 kg of crap on my back and all the rest I just might have found it within myself somehow to accept a lift in an airconditioned mine proof bullet proof battle bus which would also get there in one thirtieth of the time, or be in 30 times as many places in the same time but this would clearly be insanity because we are a light infantry army and like to walk.

Australia is rather large and how we havent motorised sooner amazes me, perhaps it was because of the airmobile concept prevelent in the 60s/70s?

Anyway we are getting more Bushmasters but not enough for everyone, id like to see the whole Army inclueding reserves have at least Bushmasters.

In the hardened networked army idea thats started being implemented lately we are getting 2 more battalions some will be motorised that wasnt before and one extra mechanized and the paras go.
Someone else will probably have more detail on this but how a country like us has been walking for so long spins me out but I think the govt have come to the conclusion they need an army now and are spending something on it, they are also realising foot soldures that are walking are almost useless in a battlespace the size of our northern territories which is belived to be the most likely area of enemy attack.

Perhaps if the descision on an AFV were made sooner rather than later and the mech elements were armed with CV9035s or Pumas or something the hand me down vehicles could go to reserves and other batts however this wont mean more Bushmasters which I think would be wise investment as they are proving very very usefull here and overseas, the dutch even bought some.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Id like to see the whole Army be able to transport itself, much as I used to enjoy 40km forced marches in 49 degree celcius temperatures with a 50 kg of crap on my back and all the rest I just might have found it within myself somehow to accept a lift in an airconditioned mine proof bullet proof battle bus which would also get there in one thirtieth of the time, or be in 30 times as many places in the same time but this would clearly be insanity because we are a light infantry army and like to walk.

Australia is rather large and how we havent motorised sooner amazes me, perhaps it was because of the airmobile concept prevelent in the 60s/70s?

Anyway we are getting more Bushmasters but not enough for everyone, id like to see the whole Army inclueding reserves have at least Bushmasters.

In the hardened networked army idea thats started being implemented lately we are getting 2 more battalions some will be motorised that wasnt before and one extra mechanized and the paras go.
Someone else will probably have more detail on this but how a country like us has been walking for so long spins me out but I think the govt have come to the conclusion they need an army now and are spending something on it, they are also realising foot soldures that are walking are almost useless in a battlespace the size of our northern territories which is belived to be the most likely area of enemy attack.

Perhaps if the descision on an AFV were made sooner rather than later and the mech elements were armed with CV9035s or Pumas or something the hand me down vehicles could go to reserves and other batts however this wont mean more Bushmasters which I think would be wise investment as they are proving very very usefull here and overseas, the dutch even bought some.

The fact that we are a light infantry army is both a hangover from WW2, Korea, Malaysia, Konfrontasi and Vietnam, AND from a lack of funding.

Given the EXTREMELY low priority Army was after Vietnam and even after Dibb ripped the guts out of it, it's no real surprise that our Army's mobility was based on "boots individual marching".

Air mobile? 3 Brigade doesn't have enough helo's to consider the brigade air mobile. It only has enough to lift a battalion, or a company group and some artillery assets and it's the ONLY formation in Army that has ANY dedicated aviation support assets (apart from TAG-East).

To consider our Army as ever being "air mobile" is simply insane. We weren't even allowed to move our troops in Unimogs more than 15k's at a time, due to "occupational health and safety issues" (ie: bench seats, no belts, no rollover protection etc).

This is what the "10 year" warning time so hated under Dibb's plan was really about. 10 years to fund and build ADF into a force actually equipped and trained for modern warfare...

 

[Smythstar]

Sad ey.

When I wrote airborne concept I was actually thinking of the taskforce in Vietnam, but anyway things are looking up for the time being.

 

[Waylander]

Thanks for your replies.