Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Takao

The Bunker Group
That and capabilities that can be maintained predominantly through simulation with the equipment being of a type that requires minimal maintenance. Deployable rocket and missile capabilities could fit this type. Easy and cheap the develop and maintain the required skills, even though the equipment its self is high end and expensive, leave most on the gear in storage, use the minimum for training as required and do the rest of the training with simulators.

It was actually a significant consideration, for exactly the reasons you mention. It's fundamentally a simple platform - meaning that training burden is not onerous - and it gives the ARes a modern, up-to-date and needed system; not something that can usually be said about non-HADR or medical ARes capabilities. It's a self-contained box of rockets on a simple truck chassis....

But, and it needs repeating, before we equip the ARes we need to define their mission and purpose. What is the ARes for? How will it be used? Is it something that can slot into a ARA Bde for D-Day operations? Or is it something that reinforces the replacing Bde at D+90? Or is it HADR only? Or is it...? Or...?

After that, there are two main points that seem to be forgotten:

1, how does the average ARes soldier/officer mix Army and work and family?
2, equipping the ARes with 'hand me down' equipment has significant capability and retention issues. So, based on mission and (1), what do they get?

The ARes is ripe for modernisation and reformation. Would need a significant sweepout of seniors, there is a lot of.....entrenchment there, but the ARes could be on a cusp of a new golden age. Or we (the Royal, ARA, we) can let it stumble on.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
Army didn’t want to support 2 different artillery calibres and the L118 guns were shagged after long years of service.

The idea that things can just be ‘cascaded’ to the reserves, ignores the very hard service ADF platforms endure.
In addition to that:

1. the 105 mm shell just isn't as capable. It has a smaller danger zone so can be approached closer, but it just doesn't have a worthwhile payload of HE or other...'stuff'. The 155 mm or 120 mm mortar on the other hand...I've done the maths here somewhere back in time, but from memory you need ~2.5 - 3x the number of 105 mm shells for a Bty of 155 mm effect. That needs ~50% more trucks, ~20% more personnel and takes ~75% longer (with greater risk)

2. the 105 mm isn't NATO standard anymore, hence costs more and is harder to sustain. We could build our own, but then we'd be building 105 mm and 155 mm - without the integration capabilities or protentional markets of the latter.

3. the 105 mm can be replaced by a combination of 81 mm, 120 mm and 155 mm. Noting that we'd effectively be replacing the 105 mm with a 120 mm in this case (we already had 81 mm and 155 mm) and the 120 mm is more capable, a 105 mm fleet becomes redundant.

4. eww....towed guns. With all their disadvantages. Although, the 105 mm does have one (the only one! :D) advantage of actually being air mobile. A CH-47 can actually carry a gun and a feasible chunk of ammunition in one lift. But....all the other disadvantages of towed guns raise their head.
 

Rock the kasbah

Active Member
Well Greece and Crete were Churchills balls-up and It wasn't Freyberg who stuffed up at Crete, but one of his Generals defending the area surrounding Malamene airfield. Can't remember which one, might've been Hargest. Freyberg wore the blame for that because as far as he was concerned he was the overall commander and that was just who he was. He always looked out for his troops.

When a group of soldiers from the 28th Maori Battalion shot up a jeep carrying 2 Russian & 2 Yugoslav Generals outside Trieste in May / June 1945 he wasn't concerned about an international incident. The jeep had stopped at a checkpoint when told to so the Maori opened fire. Freyberg wasn't happy at all about their poor marksmanship and he let them know too in no uncertain terms. The Russian & Yugoslav Generals didn't get an apology either from Tiny Freyberg either.
My apologies
I believe churchill was freyburgs ticket to ride
WRT Crete
Dude it was a DAY drop of paratroopers onto an island with tired yet battle hardened troops defending. A private with scratchy glasses could have said sir, there landing over there.
Only in retrospect is the heights over maleme airfield so intrinsic
One would think that during war a general of note may have spotted the tactical implications of losing said hill especially after having a wee bit of time to check the joint out.
Remember churchill was giving him all the ultra reports before battle commenced.
He was a set piece general not one able to deal with the fluidity of modern ?? Warfare.
Did well up the leg of Italy by all accounts
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
My apologies
I believe churchill was freyburgs ticket to ride
WRT Crete
Dude it was a DAY drop of paratroopers onto an island with tired yet battle hardened troops defending. A private with scratchy glasses could have said sir, there landing over there.
Only in retrospect is the heights over maleme airfield so intrinsic
One would think that during war a general of note may have spotted the tactical implications of losing said hill especially after having a wee bit of time to check the joint out.
Remember churchill was giving him all the ultra reports before battle commenced.
He was a set piece general not one able to deal with the fluidity of modern ?? Warfare.
Did well up the leg of Italy by all accounts
The problem he had was that he was forbidden from doing any preparations that would indicate that he knew anything of the German plans, so as to ensure that the Germans did not suspect the existence of Ultra. In this respect he may have been over cautious in his troop deployments and not done things that could have been linked to ultra. There was also the complete lack of air cover and heavy weapons , which had been left in Greece. The Germans had aircover and limited artillery. While the Germans were successful, they incurred such high casualties that they never tried that again.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I doubt Freyberg would have known of the existence of Ultra. He'd just have been told "we have intelligence that says . . . " with no indication of its source, & if he asked, I expect the most he'd have been told was that it was reliable & had to be kept secret.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
My apologies
I believe churchill was freyburgs ticket to ride
WRT Crete
Dude it was a DAY drop of paratroopers onto an island with tired yet battle hardened troops defending. A private with scratchy glasses could have said sir, there landing over there.
Only in retrospect is the heights over maleme airfield so intrinsic
One would think that during war a general of note may have spotted the tactical implications of losing said hill especially after having a wee bit of time to check the joint out.
Remember churchill was giving him all the ultra reports before battle commenced.
He was a set piece general not one able to deal with the fluidity of modern ?? Warfare.
Did well up the leg of Italy by all accounts
You don't know Freyberg do you. He wasn't Churchill's lackey or Churchill his ticket to ride. He actually had a letter from the NZ Government stating that if the British army ordered the NZ Division into a situation where he thought that the casualties would be to high and the operation wasn't warranted he could refuse to involve the NZ Division. He was also awarded the VC in WW1, so Churchill wouldn't cowed him.

This subject is closed. You are making unfounded accusations without evidence so desist.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
It was actually a significant consideration, for exactly the reasons you mention. It's fundamentally a simple platform - meaning that training burden is not onerous - and it gives the ARes a modern, up-to-date and needed system; not something that can usually be said about non-HADR or medical ARes capabilities. It's a self-contained box of rockets on a simple truck chassis....

But, and it needs repeating, before we equip the ARes we need to define their mission and purpose. What is the ARes for? How will it be used? Is it something that can slot into a ARA Bde for D-Day operations? Or is it something that reinforces the replacing Bde at D+90? Or is it HADR only? Or is it...? Or...?

After that, there are two main points that seem to be forgotten:

1, how does the average ARes soldier/officer mix Army and work and family?
2, equipping the ARes with 'hand me down' equipment has significant capability and retention issues. So, based on mission and (1), what do they get?

The ARes is ripe for modernisation and reformation. Would need a significant sweepout of seniors, there is a lot of.....entrenchment there, but the ARes could be on a cusp of a new golden age. Or we (the Royal, ARA, we) can let it stumble on.
The answer to number one is in part interest and commitment.
Part time anything in addition to work and family is a challenge.
Being time poor seems to be the new enforced hobby these days!!!!!
I have found that with part time activities its best to commit or not do it at all.
It's good for the individual and better for the larger organisation to which you belong.
In the context of the ARes, many will have an interest, but commitment will only come with a flexibility that accommodates the time demands of today.
It's not doom and gloom, just a challenge and suggest an opportunity.

The answer to number two is what is their mission.
I'd suggest the percentage Reg / Res mix in many Battalions / Coys / Sqns should change dramatically.
This will be a dramatic adjustment for the ADF, but the small cadre of Regs supporting a large body of Reserves I feel is a dated approach.
Financially it will have to be for some Ares units, but not all.
Something closer to the 30/70 or 40/60 ratio would serve us better.
With this sort of knowledge and experience base, units would have greater capacity for active deployment and scope for expansion.
As to equipment, well it's the best we can buy.
The hand me down stuff is for the warehouse shelf for the just in case mass mobilization.

Army

1/3 - Reg
1/3 - Reg / Res
1/3 - Traditional Ares
Plus Stand by reservists.

Some current Regular units will gain reservists, but overall our holistic capacity to deploy and sustain should be improved.

I am not underestimating the scope of change to achieve the above.
It will be a seismic change in our force structure.


Regards S
 

OldTex

Active Member
The answer to number one is in part interest and commitment.
Part time anything in addition to work and family is a challenge.
Being time poor seems to be the new enforced hobby these days!!!!!
I have found that with part time activities its best to commit or not do it at all.
It's good for the individual and better for the larger organisation to which you belong.
In the context of the ARes, many will have an interest, but commitment will only come with a flexibility that accommodates the time demands of today.
It's not doom and gloom, just a challenge and suggest an opportunity.

The answer to number two is what is their mission.
I'd suggest the percentage Reg / Res mix in many Battalions / Coys / Sqns should change dramatically.
This will be a dramatic adjustment for the ADF, but the small cadre of Regs supporting a large body of Reserves I feel is a dated approach.
Financially it will have to be for some Ares units, but not all.
Something closer to the 30/70 or 40/60 ratio would serve us better.
With this sort of knowledge and experience base, units would have greater capacity for active deployment and scope for expansion.
As to equipment, well it's the best we can buy.
The hand me down stuff is for the warehouse shelf for the just in case mass mobilization.

Army

1/3 - Reg
1/3 - Reg / Res
1/3 - Traditional Ares
Plus Stand by reservists.

Some current Regular units will gain reservists, but overall our holistic capacity to deploy and sustain should be improved.

I am not underestimating the scope of change to achieve the above.
It will be a seismic change in our force structure.


Regards S
The ability of reservists to commit the time and effort to undertake the various levels of training will vary with time. The pressure from employers can be mitigated (e.g. Employer Support Scheme etc) but the family pressure is far more difficult. If the reservist is not supported by their family (and the broader community as well) then in all likelihood the family will win out.

Various schemes for integrating reservists and regulars have been tried with varying degrees of success. The issue with the various integration schemes has often come down to the availability of reservists (Issue 1 raising its head again). From personal experience (combined 35 years reserve and regular service) the Ready Reserve scheme came the closest to providing effective integrated units for the Army (I cannot voucher for RAAF or RAN). It may be that this scheme should be revisited and developed further based on the lessons learned from the first version.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The ability of reservists to commit the time and effort to undertake the various levels of training will vary with time. The pressure from employers can be mitigated (e.g. Employer Support Scheme etc) but the family pressure is far more difficult. If the reservist is not supported by their family (and the broader community as well) then in all likelihood the family will win out.

Various schemes for integrating reservists and regulars have been tried with varying degrees of success. The issue with the various integration schemes has often come down to the availability of reservists (Issue 1 raising its head again). From personal experience (combined 35 years reserve and regular service) the Ready Reserve scheme came the closest to providing effective integrated units for the Army (I cannot voucher for RAAF or RAN). It may be that this scheme should be revisited and developed further based on the lessons learned from the first version.
The best training and exercises I experienced were as a member of general reserve unit in support of a ready reserve Btn.

The closest I came to going reg was when offered a transfer to 1 Armoured when it was an integrated unit. I was to go to the GRes C Sqn as APC crew, move to B Sqn (RRes) once I was Leopard qualified and then I I found it was a good fit, move to A Sqn and Regs.

The RRes was a very good feeder for the regs, providing them with already trained people, who knew this was what they wanted to do, while also providing more opportunities to GRes units to tag along and learn while supporting the better funded RRes with their higher number of Reg personnel.
 

Bob53

Active Member
Yes such allegations and reports of mistreatment would certainly cause unease within NZDF. It would be reported up the chain with expectation of action to remedy the situation be taken. AM Carey Adamson was old school and a good man. Brig Lou Gardiner was an extremely honourable man and held in very high regard within NZDF and the wider community. He went on to a very distinguished career in government and non government circles, passing away about a month or so ago. Both made the correct decision about not handing over internees to ADF personnel. In Afghanistan around 2007 /08 from memory, the NZSAS refused to hand over captives to the Afghan army or intelligence services for interrogation because of those organisations torturing prisoners. They were also not happy about handing over captives to the Americans for the same reason.

The NZDF has a protocol about the handling and treatment of captives and it is enforceable under NZ law. It is taken very seriously. The NZSAS & 1NZSF as well as the wider NZDF are thoroughly schooled in their legal requirements and responsibilities. NZSAS has no time for cowboys and / or rogue operators and those are weeded out quickly. There is also a different culture in NZDF to the ADF and that makes a difference as well. We have our bad eggs, but we deal to them quickly before they get out of hand.

Certain media may have a habit of beating up on the military, but when cases like these allegations come out into the open, and there is enough to suggest that they have occurred with senior sirs and others in the command chain covering them up, disciplinary action not being taken against the individuals responsible and those enabling such conduct, then yes these stories should be spread far and wide. A military is as only good as the people who serve in it. It has to obey the laws of it's own land as well as adhere to the morals, standards, expectations and teachings of its country. If it allows some of its personnel to commit crimes that are against the law at home, or are war crimes then it is condoning the crimes that have been committed, the evil that they represent, and the stain upon their country's name. A military that deliberately hides such misconduct is no better than the Russian army trying to hide their atrocities in Ukraine. That is not something any of us veterans signed up for, to do, or to condone, and we certainly shouldn't be supporting anyone who has committed these crimes.
Well i thought the response was a bit holy. But again my point was really about the ABC loves a defence target and like to sully reputations. In this case I expect it will be Sir Peter Cosgrove who was a LNP nominated Governor General. I spect more revelations at critical points during the election campaign.
 

the road runner

Active Member

Wonder if with the Ukraine situation and Germany Germany planning a fast increase in defence spending… would they consider the Tigers?
65.8 million Euro to upgrade one helicopter... ONE Helicopter !!!!! You would hope 60 million of that would go to the purchase of the weapons ..
No wonder why Australia is scrapping its fleet and purchasing AH-64E
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Well i thought the response was a bit holy. But again my point was really about the ABC loves a defence target and like to sully reputations. In this case I expect it will be Sir Peter Cosgrove who was a LNP nominated Governor General. I spect more revelations at critical points during the election campaign.
Think what you may, it was a statement of fact. Don't worry most of the media love attacking NZDF.

I will let it go this time, but you broke the prohibition about Australian politics during the Australian Federal election. Don't do it again.
 

Rock the kasbah

Active Member
Has the Oz army ever thought about these things?
I do realise they are unguided, but purely as a defensive weapon, it does look like it could really ruin a beach landing.
And 6 wheel drive we could park the things just about anywhere around Oz.
I would imagine being of Russian origin the costs to build would not be OTT
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Has the Oz army ever thought about these things?
I do realise they are unguided, but purely as a defensive weapon, it does look like it could really ruin a beach landing.
And 6 wheel drive we could park the things just about anywhere around Oz.
I would imagine being of Russian origin the costs to build would not be OTT
A MRL is currently on the Radar for the Long Range Fires project later this decade, With either the US HIMARs or ROK K239 system the only real options, both fire the 227mm Rocket but the K239 can also carry 130 and 239mm Rockets and both the 239 and 227mm Rockets now come in guided varieties.
Why only as a defensive weapon? The US actually fitted MRLs to landing craft during WW2 for Beach Assault, they have long proved devastating weapons against soft targets especially.
 
Last edited:

buffy9

Active Member
Has the Oz army ever thought about these things?
I do realise they are unguided, but purely as a defensive weapon, it does look like it could really ruin a beach landing.
And 6 wheel drive we could park the things just about anywhere around Oz.
I would imagine being of Russian origin the costs to build would not be OTT
"Massed" fires isn't really how Australia does things. Better to use precision and be sure you've had an effect, with a relatively small logistical tail - a battery of four BM-21 uses a lot of ammunition. Hence Long Range Precision Fires in the US, which we appear to be jumping onto.

Further to that, any battery or regiment can only be in one place at any one time. With an (unguided) range of ~20km, they don't possess a range much better than the M777s we currently use - whilst using a lot more logistics in the process. Compare to this to a battery or regiment of LRPF, which whilst still only available in one place at a time, can still engage targets over a massive area (possibly including ships themselves).

That, and Australia isn't going to be buying Russian or Soviet-era equipment - especially when it hasn't been budgeted.
 
Last edited:

AndyinOz

Member
Australia gifts Ukraine with six M777 155mm lightweight towed howitzers and howitzer ammunition to fight off Russia Looks like we are stepping up again the direct lethal aid as has been mentioned before to the Ukrainian's, it will be interesting to see just how quickly these can be delivered? I would imagine fairly quickly since it appears not only the Ukrainian's made the request but the US itself. I wonder if that might require a half dozen replacements being acquired at some point, or are we at a point where we are simply moving away towards the AS9 Huntsman? I know it has been said that the two systems will compliment each other. (Apologies for any incorrect formatting whilst I am an avid and interested reader of this forum I am an infrequent poster)
 

MickB

Active Member
"Massed" fires isn't really how Australia does things. Better to use precision and be sure you've had an effect, with a relatively small logistical tail - a battery of four BM-21 uses a lot of ammunition. Hence Long Range Precision Fires in the US, which we appear to be jumping onto.

Further to that, any battery or regiment can only be in one place at any one time. With an (unguided) range of ~20km, they don't possess a range much better than the M777s we currently use - whilst using a lot more logistics in the process. Compare to this to a battery or regiment of LRPF, which whilst still only available in one place at a time, can still engage targets over a massive area (possibly including ships themselves).

That, and Australia isn't going to be buying Russian or Soviet-era equipment - especially when it hasn't been budgeted.
Agree that such a weapon does not fit with Australian con ops.
Also if the ADF had wanted this style of weapon im sure that Australian industry is quite capable of producing it without having to buy Russian..
 

Rock the kasbah

Active Member
Agree that such a weapon does not fit with Australian con ops.
Also if the ADF had wanted this style of weapon im sure that Australian industry is quite capable of producing it without having to buy Russian..
There has been talk on this thread WRT the army reserve and their role.
Could be right up their alley
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
Sorry - a multi-barrel rocket launcher doesn't fit Australian CONOPS?

As @Redlands18 said - welcome to LAND 8113. MRL has been on our list of projects for a while now. It'll fire a range of weapons, precision and other, and offer significant advantages and opportunities. Something like counter-battery fire is perfect for a MRL. It's not a BM-21, it's a significant step up in every way, but MRL it is.
 
Top