MARKMILES77
Active Member
Only pointing out to RAVEN that I wasn't advocating that we let the "enemy penetrate to the suburbs of Sydney".
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Hollywood movies are not generally where I look to educate myself about Military matters.
(Sorry I couldn't resist!)
But to respond to your point, there is a role for armoured vehicles.
An MRAP (e.g. Bushmaster) type vehicle would have been useful in Mogadishu.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
How would you propose the Army should be utilised in the absence of the type of armour being procured under L400 Ph3? What is the CONOPS you have in mind for that branch of the ADF?
An MRAP would die just like a humvee if it is up against RPGs and heavy machine guns. They are not intended to be used against direct fire.
Slightly better protected than the Malaysian 4x4 Condors used but it still would have been vulnerable to RPGs, unless fitted with chicken wire or slat armour.
Last edited:
T
They worked well in Vietnam which had similar terrain and vegetation to our northern approaches. We also used tanks in the New Guinea campaign against the Japanese. I’m not sure where you get the idea a tank is of no use in our island approaches.
If ADF armour was deployed; chances; are it will be in South East Asia where things have significantly mproved in terms of infrastructure; making local terrain much more conducive for the employment of heavy armour compared to the past.
the road runner
Active Member
Even if these numbers are correct and you are basing your opinion on the losses of Russian tanks..
You do understand that if it was not for western nations sending over massive numbers of ATGW the outcome would be quiet different?
Ukraine must have the largest number of ATGW on the planet at the moment ,17000 units have been sent there in the first week..and still the Russians are at the doorstep of a number of Ukraine City's
Ukraine Has More Anti-Tank Weapons Than the Russian Army Has Tanks | The National Interest
The reason i am glad the Army is upgrading its Armored units in both tanks and IFV is because we like to fight in a combined arms manner.We will have Air support, UAV's ,air defense systems,AWACS,Electric Warfare the list goes on and on
Having people train with this equipment,will teach them the weakness and strength of these systems, the logistics needed to support these systems and ways to defeat them
I think you are placing to much faith in one system as a silver bullet. How do you think Russian tanks would have preformed if they had a Active protection System such as Trophy? How do you think Ukraine would have preformed if they did not have 17000 ATGM sent to them from the west?
How do you think Ukraine would preform if they had combined arms with Modern Tanks/IFV/Self propelled howitzer/networked all together with MLRS/Gunships/AWD/Fighter Aircraft/AWACs/Long range PGM's/UAV's over just ATGW? I know what id be taking and i can see what the ADF is purchasing!
One weapon system usually has a counter .... a Modern combined arms force is very difficult to counter.
Leave the Army alone ,let them upgrade their kit ,let them train with it and watch how much it benefits Australian Defense force as a whole
Last edited:
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Exactly.
Russia has all the necessary systems for combined arms warfare.
To quote you
Ukraine does not.
And yet they are at least holding their own against a vastly more powerful nation. The ATGWs/Drones are making a massive difference.
In my view, the least important components of Combined Arms Warfare are Tanks and IFVs.
I'm not opposing Combined Arms Warfare. Far from it. It IS the way advanced Armies will win on the battlefield.
But I think it will be done differently and heavy armour will be the least important tool.
If your choice is between buying Tanks or buying Ways of Killing Tanks, I'd go the latter.
Heavy Armour, tanks for example, pose a massive logistics burden on an Army. I think an Abrams tank uses about 1 litre of diesel to move 200-250 metres. So having them is not without consequence.
I ask the question for anyone to answer:
What role will Tanks/IFVs perform in a modern combined arms force, in particular a modern Australian Army combined Arms force.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
And remember, even if the Australian Army was to deploy an entire Brigade, it will deploy a grand total of 14 Tanks!
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
This strikes me as the crux of the matter, and I am sure the likes of @Raven22, @Takao and @ADMk2 can answer more authoritatively than I can. That said, I think you'll find they will play an essential role in allowing the land force to conduct close combat with the land forces of a hostile nation, allowing freedom of maneuver in a fairly unique and indispensable way.
I suspect this may also be essential for safeguarding/complementing other parts of the land force such as IADS assets, long-range precision fires (LBASM, MLRS etc) and so on.
You'll note I asked you a similar question earlier - how do you envisage the Army operating in the absence of its planned armoured vehicle fleet? Some point to the USMC EABO concept, but I am not sure that would be viable in our case... (not enough troops, not enough amphibs, wrong type of amphibs, no other branch to call upon if close combat occurs whereas USMC will be backed by armour from US Army... etc)
Yeah - we probably need even more
(@Takao has explained as much in this very thread), but we're talking about IFVs here as well.
Last edited:
You guys can stop all this discussion, one of Australia's most preeminent military thinkers has solved all of the Army's problems (article access via Defence account) :
Katter calls for Isa army base
Townsville Bulletin
Monday 14th March 2022 at 01:00am
KENNEDY MP Bob Katter has reiterated his desire to see a new army base constructed in Mount Isa while calling for Australia's teenagers to be trained in weapon handling.
Mr Katter had previously called on the government to back the proposal in August of 2020, and again requested the move in a letter to Defence Minister Peter Dutton.
“There needs to be a full battalion of at least one thousand men stationed in Mount Isa,” Mr Katter said.
“We also need tanks and armoured personnel carriers equipped with rocket and missile capacity.
“It's a city with the appropriate infrastructure and the housing can be built at virtually no cost at all, with cavity block construction. The cost will be negligible.”
Mr Katter said the federal government should train 14year-old children on how to use a rifle.
“Ukraine is holding back the Russian army with guerrilla warfare,” Mr Katter said.
“If we train our young people and give them a rifle, then Australia will also have a guerrilla army ready to defend our country.”
Mr Katter described Australia's north as “an empty land” and said the move would cause the population to expand. “If you put 1000 soldiers in Mount Isa, the population of the town will grow to 40,000 people.
“We are an empty land, apart from a narrow strip of coastline from Cairns down to Melbourne and around to Adelaide. In the area that is barely populated, is all our gold, all our iron ore, all our coal and most of our water. How will you defend and keep it if no one is living there?”
Katter calls for Isa army base
Townsville Bulletin
Monday 14th March 2022 at 01:00am
KENNEDY MP Bob Katter has reiterated his desire to see a new army base constructed in Mount Isa while calling for Australia's teenagers to be trained in weapon handling.
Mr Katter had previously called on the government to back the proposal in August of 2020, and again requested the move in a letter to Defence Minister Peter Dutton.
“There needs to be a full battalion of at least one thousand men stationed in Mount Isa,” Mr Katter said.
“We also need tanks and armoured personnel carriers equipped with rocket and missile capacity.
“It's a city with the appropriate infrastructure and the housing can be built at virtually no cost at all, with cavity block construction. The cost will be negligible.”
Mr Katter said the federal government should train 14year-old children on how to use a rifle.
“Ukraine is holding back the Russian army with guerrilla warfare,” Mr Katter said.
“If we train our young people and give them a rifle, then Australia will also have a guerrilla army ready to defend our country.”
Mr Katter described Australia's north as “an empty land” and said the move would cause the population to expand. “If you put 1000 soldiers in Mount Isa, the population of the town will grow to 40,000 people.
“We are an empty land, apart from a narrow strip of coastline from Cairns down to Melbourne and around to Adelaide. In the area that is barely populated, is all our gold, all our iron ore, all our coal and most of our water. How will you defend and keep it if no one is living there?”
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Yes I could really see ADF personnel lining up in droves to move to Mt Isa
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Bob Katter? .... hmmm....
They breed em different way up North....
They breed em different way up North....
the road runner
Active Member
Russia have not really fought in a combined arms manner as they are to scared of Fratricide ,that is why the Russian Air force is not being used to full effect
I beg to differ as the Russians have a number of City's surrounded
Well you would be responsible for a huge number of dead Diggers ,i can not believe you are actually saying this
With this above logic why even have Fighter jets or naval ships.... i mean they use to much petrol and have an even greater logistics burden than a Tank
Should we just scrap our fast jets and naval ships and buy patriot systems and Anti ship weapons as the logistics placed on the defence force is to great?
What role do you think Tanks and IFV will preform? They will hold ground , they will manoeuvre onto the objective They will protect our greatest asset , The Digger! You are basically just saying you want light Infantry running around carrying ATGM with no protection
EDIT. And you do realize that Army has over 2500 RMMV HX trucks with over 1000 of them having protected cabs.Logistics wise i think that ARMY has a large number of modern trucks to handle a tanks logistic burden.
Cheers
Last edited:
Except you are making a poor comparison. You are comparing one nation with different organisational structures to another, a nation with a certain set of logistical capability to another. It is frankly a chalk and cheese comparison before even factoring in that the Russian forces rely on conscription to fill out some of their ranks and we don't. Nor do you factor in the situation on the ground and the assumptions made prior to the illegal invasion.
You are taking a very narrow view of it dare I say suffering from tunnel vision seeing what is happening and assuming that that is the way it will always be without taking into account everything around you that led to the current situation.
Let's make it nice and simple, you need to advance across 10km of open terrain to capture a fortified town, are you going to be walking it carrying ATGM's or are you going to have MBT's, IFV's and APC's moving on it? The enemy won't even have to worry about deploying armour, their infantry will pick you off long before you get there.
EDIT: found article regarding Russian military structure in relation to its logistics. Will be posting here and the Russian Ukrainian war thread.
Feeding the Bear: A Closer Look at Russian Army Logistics and the Fait Accompli - War on the Rocks
Last edited:
the road runner
Active Member
Post deleted duplicate post
He wasn't bred. Came out of the other hole. I've worked in Isa, and lived there briefly. Katter(s) are easily the thickest of the thick
oldsig
(Not political. He's stupid AND a politician regardless of party)
buffy9
Well-Known Member
It should be noted that the deployment of a brigade will not necessarily mean the deployment of a single squadron. The other squadrons, and if necessary more, can be drawn from the other brigades if necessary.
The three combat brigades operate under Forces Command - which Joint Operations Command can draw forces from as necessary for the scenario at play. It isn't restricted to just what individual brigades are operating atm.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
I think you are making my point.
"The enemy won't even have to worry about deploying armour, their infantry will pick you off long before you get there" whether you are in an IFV/APC or not.
Adding the IFV does not change the outcome.
A well equipped defending force in a "fortified town" will hit you as soon as you enter the "open terrain" 10 km out
From 10 kms they will be hitting you with:
Mortars, Precision Guided and specialised homing Anti-Armour (equivalent of the SMART 155 rounds for artillery).
Drones
Loitering munitions.
Long Range Guided Weapons e.g.Spike ER II (10km range)
From 5km the regular ATGMs will join the attack.
How will being in an IFV prevent this from happening.
Will the 30 mm IFV Cannon supress the enemy mortar teams or other weapons teams from 10km out? Nope
Will the heavy armour of an IFV prevent a top attack mortar or ATGM from killing the vehicle. Nope
Oh you say "I'll add an Active Protection System". Not sure how well it protects you from Mortars or top attack but even it does, the same APS could just be added to a light armoured vehicle to give the same degree of protection. It is not anything intrinsic to the IFV which will protect you in this scenario. You will be just as protected travelling in a Light Armoured Vehicle, say a French VBMR Griffon (armoured against 14.5mm APS) with an APS.
Alright you say, "It is not the IFV, in this scenario which protects the Infantry, it is the other aspects of Combined Arms, like air power, like artillery, like attack helicopters." Exactly, so why is an IFV vital in this scenario again?
And just to get one thing clear, I am not advocating you walk everywhere. You need protection from Mines/IEDs and small arms wherever you are travelling. But the fore mentioned VBMR is an example of a light vehicle that can do that. Just don't think you can use your vehicle to close right in with the enemy.
I suppose what I am saying is that the idea of a vehicle which can carry the Infantry right up to the enemy and then kills them (i.e. an IFV) is borderline not viable Today and will only become less so as anti-armour technologies improve in the future.