Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Should Australia raise a MARINE Battalion.....
BLUIE006    12/25/2006 1:36:12 AM
There is an gap in Australias defence capability that I have never understood ....... WE have do Marines.... we have alot of water .. I propose making a Marine battalion.....similar to Royal Marines 1000-2000 strong I know people are going crap on about staffing issues etc etc If we could raise the numbers ...do you think it would be useful ??
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4
Volkodav       1/13/2007 9:04:30 PM
Just an idea, why not expand 3/4CAV to support the ODF in amphib ops by forming and Amphibious APC Sqn equiped with AAAV's aswell as a Rec Sqn with ASLAV's.  This wouldn't affect the flexibility of the ODF battalians but would greatly increase their utiliy when used in the Amphib role.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Digger       1/14/2007 3:34:58 AM

Just an idea, why not expand 3/4CAV to support the ODF in amphib ops by forming and Amphibious APC Sqn equiped with AAAV's aswell as a Rec Sqn with ASLAV's.  This wouldn't affect the flexibility of the ODF battalians but would greatly increase their utiliy when used in the Amphib role.

I like the Amphib idea, though the ASLAV idea has a few problems, the main one being we don't have enough ASLAV's to form another Squadron and type II ASLAV's aren't being built anymore. The only way it could be done would be to strip vehicles out of 2 Cav and 2/14.

B Sqn 3/4 CAV's role has been APC "lift" since it was formed anyway. It's never been "recon".

An additional "amphib" APC Squadron could be useful however.

 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       1/14/2007 4:13:58 AM
RM Armd Spt Sqn uses Viking.  They ordered 108, I'd guess sqn UE is 80+, of course in the RAAC that number of vehicles would have to be commanded by at least a colonel, although RM seems to cope with a major as OC in the bde's multi-functional spt regt (separate to the Log Spt Regt).
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/14/2007 8:18:30 AM
An RAAC APC Regt has a very different structure to its tank or ASLAV equivalent in that it is much larger so large infact that our APC Regt only has one line SQN.
 
(From the Australian War Memorial Website)
1993
Armoured Personnel Carrier (Cavalry) Squadron **
 
6 Other Ranks
3 armoured personnel carriers
 
Troop Headquarters (1 Officer, 5 Other Ranks, 3 armoured personnel carriers)
3 x Section
9 Officers, 132 Other Ranks
Squadron Headquarters (9 armoured personnel carriers)
Support Troop (17 armoured personnel carriers, 3 tracked load carriers)
Administration Troop (4 armoured personnel carriers, 12 tracked load carriers)
Tech Support Troop (6 armoured personnel carriers, 1 cargo carrier, 1 armoured recovery vehicle)
4 x Armoured Personnel Carrier Troop
 

I do like the Viking as a vehicle but believe it would be better deployed as an organic support vehicle in the Battalions as I also believe should be the case for the Bushmaster.  The Line Troops of the RAAC is no place for support vehicles. 
 
As for the ASLAV option in my perfect world they would be cascaded from 2 CAV and 2nd/14th when they receive new generation vehicles (perhaps LAVIIIs) under the planned ASLAV upgrade program.  Maybe some of the reserve Cav units could get some too then instead of the insult of having to bop around in Landrovers.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       1/15/2007 4:21:36 AM
I've always thought that the RAAC APC sqn concept was a very good one for use with light troops, although its basic troop actually too small, an armd inf coy more usually has 14 or 15 IFVs, ie 1 per rifle pl HQ as well.   The issue is the extent to which these APC tps should be multi-role and this determines how much armament they need.  
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/15/2007 5:00:25 AM
An exercise I was in during the late 90's an ARES Armd Rec Sqn reroled as an APC Troop with 4 APC's in each of 3 sections with a Trp Hq of 2 APC's and 1 ACV.  This was easily a Coy lift.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Digger       1/15/2007 7:10:58 AM

I've always thought that the RAAC APC sqn concept was a very good one for use with light troops, although its basic troop actually too small, an armd inf coy more usually has 14 or 15 IFVs, ie 1 per rifle pl HQ as well.   The issue is the extent to which these APC tps should be multi-role and this determines how much armament they need.  

IN 2/14LHR we had 6x M113A1's per troop, 3x  troops per Sqn , with Sqn HQ operating additional  M113A1's and Command Variants. 

We operated 2x Sabre Sqn's (before it went reg). Basically this allowed us to carry "most" of a light infantry battalion, when we occasionally reverted to an "APC" role when some bosses got together and decided we weren't "recon" for a weekend or a couple of weeks... :)

I understood this is how the other APC regiments operated in the mid to late 90's before the powers that be, decided "choccos" couldn't train enough to operate an APC and gave them Landrovers instead. Funny that they are still considered part of RAAC despite being mounted in Land Rovers...
 
Quote    Reply

dogberry       1/15/2007 5:50:32 PM
Would you see an Australian Marine Battalion operating as a large unit or the controlling organization for 100 small units?
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Digger       1/15/2007 10:18:50 PM

Would you see an Australian Marine Battalion operating as a large unit or the controlling organization for 100 small units?


If we were to create such a battalion, it'd be the same size more or less as any other battalion (except 4RAR Commando) and be around 700 soldiers strong. It would be a single entity, not a "100" small units...
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       1/16/2007 5:43:18 AM
As I said previously, there's nothing notably specialised about amphib landings.  Paras did it in 1982 in FI and even Aust inf did it in WW2 (not to mention other inf in N Africa, Sicily, Italy and France).  Frankly, if normal inf could do it in WW2 then if a modern professional army needs a specialised 'marine' unit to go ashore then its got serious training  and cultural problems.  I really don't think this applies to Aust.  It's also worth noting that just over 50 years there was the first amphib assault by heli.  These days I don't think professional armies think this is particularly specialised either!
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics