What sort of land force does Australia really need?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Aussie Diggermark 2 8/19/2008 9:47:42 AM

I believe a light infantry based force is anachronistic in the modern age. The age old infantry saying "the worst ride is better than the best walk" holds every bit as true for deployed operations as it does for so called "continental defence.

Our Army should therefore be entirely motorised in the sense that it has vehicular transport, rather than "wheeled or tracked" specifically.

I believe that the current plan to transform Army from a light infantry based force to a light armoured force is probably the most reasonable path. Army certainly needs heavy elements in order to sustain a credible warfighting capability.

I would suggest a single NATO styled Armoured brigade which is capable of fighting as a single unit or creating multiple battlegroup sized formations, would be sufficient to satisfy the "heavy" element and in that respective the current ELF/HNA doesn't quite go far enough.

The Army "2020 follow-on force" project seeks to move Army from an Army of "twos" under HNA/ELF to an Army of "threes". I believe this would be adequate to provide for 1 Brigades structure.

1 Brigade would therefore consist of:

3x mech battalions.

An armoured regiment with 3x tank squadrons.

An artillery regiment with 3x artillery gun batteries, to support a battalion each.

A Cavalry Regiment with 3x Squadons (already present).

Plus supporting elements.

3 Brigade and 7 Brigade would follow suit with:

3x light armoured infantry battalion.

An artillery Regiment with 3x gun batteries, to support a battalion each.

A Cavalry Regiment with 3x squadrons.

Plus supporting elements.

The difference between 3 Brigade and 7 Brigade would be that 3 Brigade focuses on dismounted operations (and continues to provide the "rapid deployment" role), whilst 7 Brigade focuses on long ranged mounted operations (and sustainment operations).

This plan would require the creation of 2x extra infantry battalions, over and above HNA/ELF plans, with Army then operating 9x infantry battalions, which still does not exceed that which was maintained by Army during Vietnam (and a much more difficult time economically and a much smaller population, though battalions were "fleshed out" with Nashos')...

Army Aviation (16 Aviation Brigade) would be operated with 3x Aviation Regiments, each with 3x Squadrons. Two of these Regiments would be dedicated to tactical transport with MRH-90 and Chinook Squadrons in each Regiment.

SOCOMD would continue to operate as now, however 1 Cmdo Regiment would gain a further Commando Company to be based in South East Queensland / North New South Wales. 4RAR would lose the "RAR" title and simply become 4 Commando Regiment. The title of 4RAR would transfer to the additional battalion to be created for 1 Brigade.

There would also be a force support Brigade, operating 3x combat support regiments.

This would comprise Army's "ready force", (presently known as 1 Division)

A sustainment force (currently 2nd Division) would also be operated.

I would continue to operate the "3" structure, contained within a Brigade (or taskforce if you prefer a more modern term) but with each capable of providing 3x individual battlegroups, just as the "ready force" units do.

These battlegroups would be geographically separated, but capable of collective training activities depending on resource allocations. Low maintenance vehicles, but with "survivability enhancement kits" would be a feature of these units CES, to maximise the training time available to these part time units.

I would however advocate that these units be equipped with capabilities relevent to modern warfare, rather than simply "training" capabilites. I am a firm believer that warfare (of whatever intensity) will always be a "come as you are" proposition and we will never have full time force of sufficient size to handle all our requirements, short of a conventional "nation on nation" threat scenario with significant lead time.

Part-time units such as infantry would therefore have a capability to employ light armoured and armed vehicles (such as an armoured G Wagen, with a roof mounted MAG-58) for instance with a capability for a British WMIK style capability to improve firepower within these units.

Part time Cavalry units would be maintained and remain known as Light Horse, Mounted Rifles or Lancer units, to continue the traditions and history of these types of units. They would be equipped with a light armoured recce vehicle (along the lines of an Eagle IV or similar) to conduct Cavalry and mounted recon operations.

Part time Artillery units would maintain a modern artillery capability with the same gun as that used by the full time light motorised units PLUS a "cheaper" training capability such as 81mm mortars to conduct the bulk of the training, given the limited resources that will always be present, regretably.

Current full time capabilities such as Combat Engineer Regiments will also be maintained in part time formations. The Australian Army has a severe shortage of such units, even IN it's full time forces and I believe many tradespersons in the civilian community could be encourage to use their skills, if given the appropriate opportunity within Army.

Army only has 3 combat engineer regiments and all 3 are full time (or soon will be) and yet Combat Engineers is one of the few Army capabilities that is ALWAYS deployed on every single op. The 3 Regiments are also based in Brisbane, Townsville and Darwin too. Might there be some Tasmanians, South Australians or Western Australians interested in this work? The capability needs to be developed through Army and I think a part time capability should be a priority.

Anyhow these are my initial thoughts. I might consider GBAD and other capabilities a bit later on...

Quote Reply

Yimmy 8/19/2008 12:31:10 PM

Just a thought, but if Australia is moving away from light role infantry, towards mechanised infantry, can your current logistics sustain that?

Quote Reply

Enterpriser 8/19/2008 11:39:45 PM

Just a thought, but if Australia is moving away from light role infantry, towards mechanised infantry, can your current logistics sustain that?

I cannot claim any special knowledge but (to tide you over with an answer until the more informed arrive) I would think that having sufficient numbers of trades qualified people (perenially a problem) may be an issue, as might the lack of Combat engineers. In terms of movement, the LHDs and Sealift ship will assist wuth the heavier components and the current airlift will probably come in handy moving all the bushmasters around. Overall it will probably depend on the size of the deployment. I would think that an armoured battlegroup (or more likely a combined arms one) would be do-able.

Brett.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 8/20/2008 8:04:37 AM

AD, you read my mind!

Quote Reply

Enterpriser 8/20/2008 8:46:15 AM

Our Army should therefore be entirely motorised in the sense that it has vehicular transport, rather than "wheeled or tracked" specifically.

I am curious as to how you see such an equipped army reacting and deploying to an East Timor type flare-up etc (Speed of deployment and manner of deployment - given recent experience) and whether the force you describe would be superior in such scenarios? Personally I like the structure proposed. It seems to be a great balance and I guess that some of the motorised infantry can be deployed as light infantry if need be (scaling down being easier than scaling up). Is this the way you envisage such a force operating in such contingencies?

Brett.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 8/21/2008 6:01:28 AM

Armoured, mech and motorised Infantry can always dismount and fight as light forces.

Quote Reply

Kevin Pork 8/21/2008 6:42:39 AM

Armoured, mech and motorised Infantry can always dismount and fight as light forces.

Ask the Brits about how well that went in the Falklands.

Quote Reply

StevoJH 8/21/2008 7:18:57 AM

Armoured, mech and motorised Infantry can always dismount and fight as light forces.

Ask the Brits about how well that went in the Falklands.

Well, last time i checked the Falklands were British again and the Argentine's were sitting back on the mainland. So it must have worked ok, though the only mech units were the guards and the guys who deployed with their scimters, with the rest of the units being light infantry.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 8/21/2008 7:20:18 AM

The Guards acquitted themselves quite well but didn't compare too well in comparison with the Royal Marines, Para's and Gurkhas, who would be regarded as elite formations in any army.

Quote Reply

Raven22 8/21/2008 7:36:13 AM

Ask the Brits about how well that went in the Falklands.

How well would the para's and RMs have gone if they had ben required to fight the Red Army using warriors in a maechanised war? It is far easier for mechanised infantry to re-learn how to fight as light infantryman than it is to teach a light infantryman to fight a mechansied war.

Remember, normal British infantry battalions swap from light infantry to armoured infantry every two years. They manage it.

Quote Reply

Yimmy 8/21/2008 8:42:18 AM

Remember, normal British infantry battalions swap from light infantry to armoured infantry every two years. They manage it.

I don't believe this is the case as of after the recent army restructuring.

Due to the constant shifting roles of infantry battalions, especially from light role to mechanised or armoured, units were wasting time getting combat ready constantly.

With the new "super regiments", the role of the battalions does not shift, while individuals can move from battalion to battalion within the same regiment.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Mech versus Light 8/21/2008 9:54:29 AM

I wasn't a grunt but from what I observed in the Australian army in the 90's and from what I know about our military history, the difference between mechanised and light infantry is overblown. Before 7(then 6) Brigade went motorised, 2/14 Light Horse was equipped with M-113's rather than ASLAV's. These could operate in the recon role but also operated in the APC role with the light infantry battalions of the Brigade. 3/4 Cavalry regiment of 3 Brigade did the same thing. Whats more we deployed a predominantly light infantry force in Vietnam, but they operated from and with APC's when appropriate, and successfully so. While I know that there is a bit more to IFV/Infantry co-operation than the grunts just getting out and fighting when they get to the battle, I question whether it is so much different that our infantry battalions can't maintain a reasonable skill set in both the light and mechanised roles.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Another take 8/21/2008 10:54:22 AM

I agree with the "Army of Threes" concept for the regular army that AD has suggested. With the population growth that we can expect over the next decade, this should be a realistic recruiting goal for us. However, I would structure the force a bit differently. To my mind the overall objective should centre around the former government's doctrine of ensuring the Defence of Australia and independent action in the near region, with deployments into global operations with that capcity that we can spare from those responsibilities. I see the major roles of the Army (excluding the domestic and international counter terrorism role) in Australia and the region that being as follows.

a. Maintain the security of bases and infrastructure in Australia.

b. Rapidly defeat a numerically superior nation state in areas such as East Timor and New Guniea, and to a lesser extent in the rest of the Pacific. This would be achieved in the context of overwhelming air and naval superiority.

c. Enforce and keep the peace in the event of a well armed insurgency in the same island nations.

The way I would structure the Army to achieve this is as follows.

a. 1 Brigade would be structured as a mechanised brigade, largely as AD suggested.

b. 3 and 7 Brigades would be light infantry units whose primary means of transport would be helecopters (possibly operating from amphibs) and V-22's (enough to transport both brigades including engineers and guns into a given within half a day, with initial resupply by paradrop then by helecopter and paradrop). Their attached cavalry/light horse regiments would perform the dual APC/Recon role with tracked vehicles in the manner that they used the M-113's prior to the ASLAV's.

c. The Army Reserve battalions would become motorised units inheriting the light wheeled armour that the regulars use now, with recon and fire support provided by reserve ASLAV regiments. Motorised 120mm mortars would be used for fire support.

d. An independent regular tank battalion would be created to boost the fire power of any unit that required it.

The rationale for this would be as follows;

a. The threat to Australian bases and infrastructure is reletively low should be able to be adequately countered by reserve units. Wheeled armour is most appropriate for this role and is in fact why the Bushmaster was designed.

b. To defeat the numerically superior enemy in the near region who had captured an allied nation we need to be able to;

1. weaken them through air and naval interdiction and strikes,

2. force them to spread out through special forces action (including training local units) and through the threat of attack via multiple entry points,

3. capturing an entry point and concentrating the whole of 1 Division there.

4. defeating the enemy through rapid manouver and overwhelming fire, before they have the chance to concentrate their forces.

Airmoble forces are the best way to concentrate a large enough force to capture an entry point (a beach) for our tracked mechanised force, which can then force their way through major transport routes into major population centers, thus defeating the remaining enemy forces in the country in question. Other regional centres that an enemy might threaten to try and force us to redeploy our forces could be adequately defended by allies supported by reserve units operating in static defence of vital population centres/ports (if this threat couldn't be deterred with the counter-threat of widening the air and sea war to "dual use" facilities such as power stations, bridges and merchant shipping).

c. To defeat the well-armed insurgency the "army of threes" would allow us to sustain a brigade-level operation reinforced by reservists after an initial division level deployment.

Quote Reply

Kevin Pork 8/22/2008 4:13:27 AM

The Guards acquitted themselves quite well but didn't compare too well in comparison with the Royal Marines, Para's and Gurkhas, who would be regarded as elite formations in any army.

The guards were unable to perform a route march. it hardly requires an elite unit to do that.

They were trained to work from carriers and lacked the ability to work without them, it hardly seems wise to base a future force on proven failure.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain 8/22/2008 6:26:19 AM

The Guards acquitted themselves quite well but didn't compare too well in comparison with the Royal Marines, Para's and Gurkhas, who would be regarded as elite formations in any army.

The guards were unable to perform a route march. it hardly requires an elite unit to do that.

They were trained to work from carriers and lacked the ability to work without them, it hardly seems wise to base a future force on proven failure.

Were they unable to perform the route march at all or just not as fast as the other troops? I don't believe the former as any soldier who has passed through basic can perform a route march. The latter is quite believable as a specialty of the other units, particularily the Para's, is to cover a lot of ground quickly on foot.

In any case I'd note that if we are going to judge the normal RAR battalions standard of performance against that of the selective light infantry regiments of an army four times larger than ours, then we can't help but come up short. Those formations have soldiers with a average calibre of fitness similar to that of 4RAR, because they pick and choose from a much larger pool than we do. Our troops are still excellent by world standards though, as are the Guards. Ask the Argentinians on Mount Tumbledown whether they consider the Guards "a failure".

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

	News As History - November 22, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us