Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Have you been drinking?
Read what I wrote in my post again please and then explain how you came to that conclusion.
What I wrote is commonsense and natural justice should be applied, that even those accused may have been forced or intimidated into committing crimes.

I have seen how a minority of junior officers and NCOs behave in every day life as opposed to the stress of combat and that behaviour was malicious and self serving, sometimes even technically criminal. I have seen how they intimidate and silence subordinates and ingraciate themselves to superiors. I have also seen how most, but not all are sidelined and streamed away from important roles once their short comings are realised as they are quietly encouraged to find a new career. What I have never seen is a single one of them held to account for their actual wrong doing.

I pity the troops who serve under them and love being legally able to complain about than and take action against them when they try the same crap in the outside world.

At no point am I presuming guilt. At no point am I suggesting punishment without due process. In fact what I am quite clearly suggesting is showing compassion to members who have technically committed crimes when there is also coercion and threats involved. I.e. understand that even when offences have been committed and proven, mitigating factors need to be taken into account.

I can't see what your issue is with that.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
You seem to be suggesting that because what allegedly happened, occurred in a war zone there should be no investigation and therefore no trial and no determination of guilt or innocence.

Taking this a step further it suggests that certain individuals should be above the law.

I am against witch hunts and punishing those unfortunate to be scapegoated but believe intently that if crimes are suspected to be committed they should be investigated, if there is sufficient evidence, charges should be laid, if it progresses to trial and the person found guilty, they should be appropriately sentenced.

Quite simple, it's called the rule of law, not perfect but better than most countries need to live with.
No. This what I was referring to. How did you come to the conclusion that I am suggesting that there should be no investigation, no trial and guilt?
All I have said is let natural justice take place before you condemn anyone.
I find your comments about Jr NCO’s and Jr officers bullying their soldiers to cover up mistakes absolute crap!
You say you have never seen any held accountable. I have! I have seen soldiers discharged. One even sentenced to a long stint in Long Bay Gaol. A demotions.

I never once saw anything like that happen.
In my time, I witnessed men die in parachute accidents.(silverplains 1987) two soldiers shot during training, one fatal. The powers that be tried to hang the safety officer out to dry. They wanted someone to lay blame on. Justice prevailed. There was nothing the safety officer could have done to prevent that accident, and it came out in court. Anyway Volk, you are entitled to your opinion, however,I disagree with your opinion, based on the knowledge that you have, you are purely speculating, and I find that sad.
The truth will be exposed in the correct way, in court,not by media and public opinion.
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
No. This what I was referring to. How did you come to the conclusion that I am suggesting that there should be no investigation, no trial and guilt?
All I have said is let natural justice take place before you condemn anyone.
I find your comments about Jr NCO’s bullying their soldiers to cover up mistakes absolute crap!
I never once saw anything like that happen.
In my time, I witnessed men die in parachute accidents.(silverplains 1987) two soldiers shot during training, one fatal. The powers that be tried to hang the safety officer out to dry. They wanted someone to lay blame on. Justice prevailed. There was nothing the safety officer could have done to prevent that accident, and it came out in court. Anyway Volk, you are entitled to your opinion, however, Instringly disagree with your opinion, based on the knowledge that you have, you are purely speculating, and I find that sad.
The truth will be exposed in the correct way, in court,not by media and public opinion.
You are talking the 80s, the generation I looked up to, you wouldn't believe some of the lazy spineless sycophants I have come across in the last couple of years. Never seen one make it past captain or sergeant (or RAAF RAN equivalent) though.

Conversely most of the others are brilliant, as good or better than I have ever seen. One post saw one of the best I had worked with replaced by there very worst, who was then replaced with the very best. Three posting cycles and both extremes, the worst threw someone under a bus for identifying a potentially catastrophic material defect because it made them look bad and created more work for them.

The adf is a select cross section of the community as a hole, there is still bad along with the good, always has been and always will be.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Busy morning.
The DSCA has approved a M-1 upgrade package for Australia that will include
75 M-1A2 SEPv3 MBT with a unique Armour package and the Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station Low Profile(CROWS-LP)
29 M-1150 Assault Breaker Vehicles
18 M-1074 joint assault bridges
6 additional M88A2 Recovery Vehicles
122 Engines
The package also includes a range of equipment for Ops, trg, maintenance and logistics.
Total cost est is $1.685b
This certainly represents a significant increase over the current fleet
Its likely that the Tanks will come out of US reserve stock, be upgraded and then replace the 59 in Australian service
Great news, looks like the Biden Government is finally catching up on its admin :)

Fantastic to see the Breakers and Bridges, more recovery never goes astray !!

Curious though, 75 ? good step up from 59, but have we missed an opportunity ?

Cheers
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Great news, looks like the Biden Government is finally catching up on its admin :)

Fantastic to see the Breakers and Bridges, more recovery never goes astray !!

Curious though, 75 ? good step up from 59, but have we missed an opportunity ?

Cheers
A full sqn for each acr plus training and maintenance overhead, maybe even enough for an extra sabre sqn to reinforce initial deployments.

The other thought is maybe some gun tanks will be issued along side the breachers to serve in the demolition role with appropriate munitions.
 

Navor86

Member
I wonder how those hull numbers trickle down to the regiments. Esecially the combat engineers?
As mentioned by Volkodav 3 Squadrons for the ACRs= 42 Abrams, 1 Squadron for training. Leaves 19 tanks. Maybe 2-4 with each Sabre Squadron as maintanace pool and the rest for test and trade shools.

I wonder how they would distribute the 29 ABV and 18 AVLB and then 19 Hercules?
 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
ABC article on the removal of Elbit BMS. I think the anonymous commentary on security concerns is pretty spot on given Israel's intel capabilities.
ABC News - removal of Elbit BMS
What makes Elbit a controversial defence company in Australia? It doesn't seem to be controversial in any other region it operates in.

It's also the first time I think anyone has claimed Americans are careful around these systems, because there are NATO armies that use Elbit's BMS.

What bugs me most is they talk about a monopoly held by Elbit. It's only a local monopoly. Other companies make BMS of their own. Sick of a monopoly? Just break it. For a company, breaking another's monopoly is hard. For a state? Easy, especially when it involves low quantity production. There are literally monopoly-regulating authorities in developed countries.

This will surely affect the LAND 400 Phase 3 program.
 

MARKMILES77

Active Member
The Government of Australia has requested to buy one hundred sixty (160) M1A1 Tank structures/hulls[/QUOTE}
Busy morning.
The DSCA has approved a M-1 upgrade package for Australia that will include
75 M-1A2 SEPv3 MBT with a unique Armour package and the Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station Low Profile(CROWS-LP)
29 M-1150 Assault Breaker Vehicles
18 M-1074 joint assault bridges
75 +29+18 doesn't add up to 160 M1 Hulls! What are the 38 additional Hulls for?
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I wonder how those hull numbers trickle down to the regiments. Esecially the combat engineers?
As mentioned by Volkodav 3 Squadrons for the ACRs= 42 Abrams, 1 Squadron for training. Leaves 19 tanks. Maybe 2-4 with each Sabre Squadron as maintenace pool and the rest for test and trade shools.

I wonder how they would distribute the 29 ABV and 18 AVLB and then 19 Hercules?
I imagine there will likely be an armoured engineering squadron in each brigade plus training elements. Maybe a breacher troop and a bridging troop, possibly a troop of gun tanks as well. Could see a mix of breachers and gun tanks in a couple of troops per sqn.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
75 +29+18 doesn't add up to 160 M1 Hulls! What are the 38 additional Hulls for?
Maybe a long term plan for a stand alone armoured regiment, not for long term deployments, but to increase the weight of a brigade for specific operations.

Alternatively I wonder if there may be contingency plans for a fourth brigade?

These appear to be vehicles quarantined for Australian use in the future, I recall we quarantined suitable F-111 airframes in the US while we were working out our force structures etc. May be a similar thing, we may or may not need them but if we don't reserve them they won't be there if we do need them.
 

MARKMILES77

Active Member
Also will be surprised if they buy the M88A2. Can't cope with the weight of the M1A2 Ver3.

The latest variant in the M88 family, the M88A3 enhances the performance, survivability and responsiveness of the proven M88A2.


The M88A3 features a number of upgrades, including an modernized powertrain that improves horsepower and torque, the addition of a seventh road-wheel to increase stability, and hydro-pneumatic suspension units (HSUs) that improve cross country mobility and recovery operations.

The M88A3’s enhancements improve its speed, hoisting and winching capacity, survivability and reliability. Most importantly, these upgrades enable a single M88A3 to recover the most modern versions of the M1A2 Tank.[/QUOTE}
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
75 +29+18 doesn't add up to 160 M1 Hulls! What are the 38 additional Hulls for?
Have a read of the full DSCA announcement:

You’ll note the announcement says:

“The Government of Australia has requested to buy one hundred sixty (160) M1A1 Tank structures/hulls provided from stock in order to produce the following end items and spares: seventy-five (75) M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams Main Battle Tanks; twenty-nine (29) M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicles; eighteen (18) M1074 Joint Assault Bridges; six (6) M88A2 Hercules Combat Recovery Vehicles; and one hundred twenty-two (122) AGT1500 gas turbine engines.”

The relevant part says “and spares”.

My guess is that when Army sat down and worked out it required X number of each variant, it also worked out X number of spares required to support the new fleet of vehicles.

Take 160 used M1 tanks, strip to piles of components, repair, refurbish as necessary, add all the new components and you end up with the stated requirement.

With what’s left over, repair and refurbish what is required to provide spares for X number of years into the future.

When the completed vehicles are eventually delivered there will no doubt many container loads of spare parts delivered too.

Cheers,
 
Top