Give the brains trust of 1 Brigade some bloody credit - they can see past their noses, and know the benefits of wheels versus tracks and vice versa. Hence why the tanks and IFVs are tracked and the cavalry vehicles wheeled. A man who has spend his entire life manoeuvring AFVs both here and on ops, with our army and others, will likely be able to think at least as clearly as some random bloke on the internet. But since AG is getting on my nerves, lets have a look at why wheeled AFVs are better than tracked AFVs for cavalry tasks (ie, why the ASLAV isn't useless.)

For starters, AGs assertion that we need to concentrate only on jungle warfare in the region is totally at odds with reality. Australian forces are and always will be required to fight across the entire spectrum of conflct in any terrain or conditions (except possibly arctic conditions). At the moment we are mainly engaged, with the rest of the Western world, in a major conflict in the Middle East in which mechanised combined arms formations (including wheeled AFVs) are required. We will be fighting that conflict for years, hence we need to be equipped to fight it. That includes wheeled AFVs. That wheeled vehicles have potentially inferior tactical mobility to tracked vehicles in jungle conditions does not make them useless or a waste of money, only part of a balanced force structure able to respond to contingincies as directed by Government.

Now, why are wheeled vehicles superior to tracked vehicles for cavalry tasks, independent of terrain? Well first lets look at typical cavalry tasks - reconaissance, raiding, ambushing, convoy escort, security operations, as fire support for lighter forces when tanks are unavailable or inappropriate, QRF etc. For these tasks there are two main things that cavalry need to bring to the fight to achieve these tasks for the commander - flexibility and mobility. Flexibility is a function of the skills of cavalrymen, the fact that cavalry has both mounted and dismounted elementsm, the multi-purpose nature of the vehicles, and also the mobility inherant in the vehicles. In summary - the main thing required of a cavalry vehicle is mobility. But what is mobility, and why are wheels better for cavalry?

If you want to look at the benefits of wheels for cavalry vehicles over tracks, lets look at the ASLAV compared to the previously mentioned Puma (its not really a fair comparison since the Puma is 25 years newer than the ASLAV, but it will do for illustrative purposes). If you want to describe the aspects of 'mobility' in an AFV, you could do worse than to break it down into tactical, operational and strategic aspects (not textbook use of those terms but good enough to illustrate my point).

Tactical mobility, or battlefield mobility if you like, is obviously about getting from tactical position to tactical position on the battlefield. Now, over flat ground the Puma might have equal or even better tactical mobility compared to ASLAV. That is, it can get from this hull down position to that hull down position a 1000m away, in similar time. It probably accelerates as well, and due to its tracks and suspension can probably keep a higher speed over broken ground. So for tactical mobility, not much change between tracks and wheels for cavalry tasks.

Now looking at operational mobility, or battlefield-to-battlefield mobility, wheels are much better than tracks. Ie, an ASLAV squadron can get from their screening mission here to an assembly area for a raid 120km away much quicker and easier than a squadron with Pumas. Or, an ASLAV troop can react as QRF to a critical incident 35km much quicker and easier than a Puma troop. For cavalry tasks, this level of mobility is the most important - the flexibility of cavalry (independent of which AFV they are equipped with) is mainly derived from their ability to quickly transition from one tactical task to another tactical task a long way away. A lot of this is down to the capabilities of the soldiers manning the vehicles, but the flexibility of the wheeled ASLAVs also helps.

Looking at strategic mobility, again wheels are far better for tracks for cavalry tasks. Want to get your LAV regiment from Kuwait to Anbar province? Drive them (the Marines did and do). Want to get a Puma regiment from Kuwait to Anbar province? Stick them on the back of trucks and get them driven (like the US Army does with their Abrams/Bradleys). In an Australian context, this is also very important, because we don't have the tank transporter capability of the US Army (for instance, we only have enough HETTs to li

Just making a point - every time that Carlo Kopp says something at odds with what the combined thought of the Air Force and respectable defence commentators say, he is shouted down for being an arrogant so and so. You are doing the same. You are telling the entire defence establishment - from the dudes on the ground that use the vehicles to the suits in Canberra that write up the requirments for the LAND 400 vehicles, to the defence commentators that think a third cavalry regiment should be raised for 3 brigade - that they are wrong.

Fact: LAND 400 will replace ASLAV with another wheeled AFV.

Fact: We are buying 700 Bushmaster and will likely buy more.

Fact: We are fighting in the Middle East now and will be for probably the next ten years.

Fact: When the personnel and equipment is available we will raise a third cavalry regiment in 3 brigade.

Fact: Wheeled AFVs have been in the past and are now being used in our region.