Australian Army Discussions and Updates

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Forgot about Zippo as I stoped smoking over forty years ago. Had one with my Dad’s signature engraved on it. He didn’t smoke in his later years and gave it to me. I could trace his signature so I could make a parental note excusing me from school attendance. It fell out my shirt pocket as I was reaching for a deck line on his boat….as it went into the water never to be seen again he said “you should quit smoking”.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I was always of the impression that the Germans made the best tanks.
OT (this is the Australian Army thread, after all) but the above does need to be addressed.
"Best" is one of those problematic statements, as there is the problem of defining what is, "best". This is one of the reasons why the forum and Mods take such a dim view of vs. or "Best" threads.

During WWII, Germany certainly produced very capable tanks, particularly in terms of armour protection, fire power, long-range accuracy, and IIRC the introduction of new technologies like IR-based NVE. However, German tanks were also complex mechanical beasts which were complicated to produce. If memory serves, Germany in the lead up to, and then during the course of the war produced ~25k tanks of various designs and variants. The British produced a similar number of ~25k tanks, again of various designs and variants. The US and USSR respectively each produced ~100k and either 125k or 150k, again of various designs. This introduces the notion that a significantly greater quantity could be more important than an individually more capable design, particularly since not all designs produced were as capable as late model Panther or Tiger tanks.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
OT (this is the Australian Army thread, after all) but the above does need to be addressed.
"Best" is one of those problematic statements, as there is the problem of defining what is, "best". This is one of the reasons why the forum and Mods take such a dim view of vs. or "Best" threads.

During WWII, Germany certainly produced very capable tanks, particularly in terms of armour protection, fire power, long-range accuracy, and IIRC the introduction of new technologies like IR-based NVE. However, German tanks were also complex mechanical beasts which were complicated to produce. If memory serves, Germany in the lead up to, and then during the course of the war produced ~25k tanks of various designs and variants. The British produced a similar number of ~25k tanks, again of various designs and variants. The US and USSR respectively each produced ~100k and either 125k or 150k, again of various designs. This introduces the notion that a significantly greater quantity could be more important than an individually more capable design, particularly since not all designs produced were as capable as late model Panther or Tiger tanks.
Its the old story, it doesn’t matter that Tank A is better then Tank B if.
There is no Fuel
No Ammo
No Trained Crew
Crew are dead, sick or wounded due to lack of Meds, Food or Water
No Communications
Got no idea where the Enemy is
An even bigger issue for the German Army in WW2 then being outnumbered in Tanks was being outnumbered in Trucks, jeeps and other AFVs. The German Army in WW2 was still heavily reliant on Horse and Carts.
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Its the old story, it doesn’t matter that Tank A is better then Tank B if.
There is no Fuel
No Ammo
No Trained Crew
Crew are dead, sick or wounded due to lack of Meds, Food or Water
No Communications
Got no idea where the Enemy is
An even bigger issue for the German Army in WW2 then being outnumbered in Tanks was being outnumbered in Trucks, jeeps and other AFVs. The German Army in WW2 was still heavily reliant on Horse and Carts.
Which I always thought was well summed up in this scene at the end of the "Band of Brothers" TV show :
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Which I always thought was well summed up in this scene at the end of the "Band of Brothers" TV show :
Yes that scene sums it up perfectly, just noticed something i have never noticed before there is a Sherman sitting on a Trailer being pulled behind a truck on the R/H side.
IMHO the best Military TV Series ever made, mind you being made by the same people who made Saving Private Ryan didn’t hurt.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
On subject of tanks and the belief that they would not be able to operate in the south pacific even assuming they are right and their are some regions they would not be suitable rather then throwing away our MBT's to acquire a light tank that doesn't exist and whose usefulness would be a very small amount of combat compared to all possibilities would it not be cheaper instead to fit ATGM's to more of our vehicles and increase stock of our infantry AT weapons?

If the terrain/infrastructure is that bad you need to go light then more then likely your opposition will be outfitted similar if not lighter. Such a scenario ATGM's might even be overkill.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
would it not be cheaper instead to fit ATGM's to more of our vehicles and increase stock of our infantry AT weapons?

If the terrain/infrastructure is that bad you need to go light then more then likely your opposition will be outfitted similar if not lighter. Such a scenario ATGM's might even be overkill.
You mean like fitting Spike LR to Boxer? Someone already thought of that, and I bet it will also apply to the new IFV

oldsi
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
On subject of tanks and the belief that they would not be able to operate in the south pacific even assuming they are right and their are some regions they would not be suitable rather then throwing away our MBT's to acquire a light tank that doesn't exist and whose usefulness would be a very small amount of combat compared to all possibilities would it not be cheaper instead to fit ATGM's to more of our vehicles and increase stock of our infantry AT weapons?

If the terrain/infrastructure is that bad you need to go light then more then likely your opposition will be outfitted similar if not lighter. Such a scenario ATGM's might even be overkill.
The Army is currently receiving between 400-600 of the latest 84mm Carl Gustav RCL, we are getting the MK 47 AGL, we have no shortage of Bushmasters to operate teams out of, the Hawkei’s and Bushmasters can both be fitted with RCS systems for 12.7mm MGs and the MK 47. I don’t think we are going to be short on Weapons for use against lighter Armour and non Armoured Vehicles etc.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Army is currently receiving between 400-600 of the latest 84mm Carl Gustav RCL, we are getting the MK 47 AGL, we have no shortage of Bushmasters to operate teams out of, the Hawkei’s and Bushmasters can both be fitted with RCS systems for 12.7mm MGs and the MK 47. I don’t think we are going to be short on Weapons for use against lighter Armour and non Armoured Vehicles etc.
Spike LR2 was chosen to replace Javelin in the longer term as well and new short-ranged anti-armour weapons and Loitering munitions under LAND 159 on their way…

Army has confirmed it is interested in the SAAB / Raytheon Guided Multi-purpose Munition for the 84m Carl Gustav M4 as well.

Army is not doing too badly on the anti-armour front…
 

Zorborg

New Member
Somewhat shocked to see DTR reporting that Sea Transport Solutions missed out on competing for the US Navy's Light Amphibious Warship. They were not one of the five companies awarded concept design contracts. I was a little excited for the potential opportunity of the Stern Landing Vessel working its way into ADF procurement. Maybe there is a chance that it can still compete, just missed out on this part of the program due to its design already being somewhat advanced.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Somewhat shocked to see DTR reporting that Sea Transport Solutions missed out on competing for the US Navy's Light Amphibious Warship. They were not one of the five companies awarded concept design contracts. I was a little excited for the potential opportunity of the Stern Landing Vessel working its way into ADF procurement. Maybe there is a chance that it can still compete, just missed out on this part of the program due to its design already being somewhat advanced.
There is a post on the RAN thread from @alexsa about the STS, worth having a read. The eventual LCH replacement when it happens is going to be at the very least a JP program, there is no way the Army currently posses the skillset to operate a Vessel of this size.
 

Zorborg

New Member
There is a post on the RAN thread from @alexsa about the STS, worth having a read. The eventual LCH replacement when it happens is going to be at the very least a JP program, there is no way the Army currently posses the skillset to operate a Vessel of this size.
Thanks, I had a look but basically what I already posted. I'd agree with you that Army is not in a position to operate the vessel, but they'll certainly want some input given the ever-growing importance of being able to manouvre in the region. Here's hoping we can watch and learn from the USN program, just as others have been watching our IFV replacement competition.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Somewhat shocked to see DTR reporting that Sea Transport Solutions missed out on competing for the US Navy's Light Amphibious Warship. They were not one of the five companies awarded concept design contracts. I was a little excited for the potential opportunity of the Stern Landing Vessel working its way into ADF procurement. Maybe there is a chance that it can still compete, just missed out on this part of the program due to its design already being somewhat advanced.
There is a post on the RAN thread from @alexsa about the STS, worth having a read. The eventual LCH replacement when it happens is going to be at the very least a JP program, there is no way the Army currently posses the skillset to operate a Vessel of this size.
Thanks, I had a look but basically what I already posted. I'd agree with you that Army is not in a position to operate the vessel, but they'll certainly want some input given the ever-growing importance of being able to manouvre in the region. Here's hoping we can watch and learn from the USN program, just as others have been watching our IFV replacement competition.
Given Alexsa's professional experience I believe that he has assessed the situation pretty well. FYI he had years as a bridge watch keeping officer in the RAN and has worked in the maritime industry since.

The DTR articles in the July 2021 issue are quite interesting and I believe that they make a very valid point about the structure of the ADF and its approach towards the Indo-Pacific region. My own pov is that it, and NZDF, need to look back at how they operated in the region during WW2. The technology has changed, but the basics haven't. It will still involve ARCIOPS (Archipelagic Operations) and island hopping, as well as blue water OPS.

I don't accept the argument that MBTs are no longer applicable in the Australian context. IMHO they're equally applicable in the future, just as in the past however the CONOPS will be different. There will not be massed armour formations advancing across the battlefield as the de jure option. They will be used in troops rather than squadrons and regiments and will not necessarily be the first ashore. During WW2 in the Pacific the Australian Army did this on its amphib OPS. The tanks were bought up when the infantry struck a Japanese strong point that they couldn't destroy, overrun, or bypass etc.

The next point that I took from the articles is that the three services actually have to sit down and talk with each other in order to work out an AMPHIB CONOPS for the Indo-Pacific region. It means that some sacred cows will have to be slaughtered, but the end result will be a more cohesive and robust force. Whether it happens or not is another story and most likely will require a strongly worded directive from the Cabinet.
 

Zorborg

New Member
Given Alexsa's professional experience I believe that he has assessed the situation pretty well. FYI he had years as a bridge watch keeping officer in the RAN and has worked in the maritime industry since.
Perhaps he deleted a post in the RAN thread, but there wasn't anything different from my post, other than referencing Austal bidding for both programs, so not sure why you're referencing his service history.

I don't accept the argument that MBTs are no longer applicable in the Australian context
Absolutely. It seems people overlook how numerous battles between Australia and Japan played out, with regards to the devastating impact tanks had on the outcome of a particular days battle. Rather, I think people tend to focus on the final outcome. We might've won a battle, but the employment of Japanese amour in assisting the ground forces in defence or offense was significant with achieving objectives or time frames, not to mention, the loss of life. I have no doubt armour, such as the Abrams and new IFV, will play a key role in SEA ARCOPS. They'll be made all the more effective with a suitable, flexible solution such as what the USN has in mind.
 
Top