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: If LAND 400 goes all wheeled where to for 1 Armoured Regt?
Volkodav    11/4/2008 1:06:13 AM
Assuming LAND 400 results in a common wheeled FOV replacing the M-113, ASLAV and Bushmaster, where does this leave 1 Armoured REGT? Will it retain it's Abrams as a DF Infantry support asset or will we see the introduction of a DF variant of the LAND 400 solution in the long term? Is there any chance 1 Armound could actually be reroled as Armoured CAV and expanded with tracked CFV, AIFV and Assault Troops converting each Sqn into an Armoured Battle Group to compensate for the loss of our tracked Mech Inf?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Volkodav       11/6/2008 5:45:20 AM
Whoops my mistake, the 11th ACR is predominantly a training unit, (although elements of it have been deployed to Iraq).  I will keep looking for better examples.
 
I remember seeing ORBAT's for, if my memory is correct, an Israeli Brigade made up of combined arms battle groups rather than battalions and also of a US heavy Battalion with 2 companies of Abrams and 2 of Bradley AIFV's.
 
I know the Brits have been mixing and matching armour and infantry to form battle groups for years now, i.e. the Royal Scots Battle Group in 1991 that included a Squadron of Challengers from The Life Guards and 2 Warrior equiped Rifle Companies.  I have read something more recently that they had or were about to begin altering the structure of their Regiments and Battalions to better reflect the structure of the deployed battle groups so troops at home could train as they fight and were completely familiar with the operational structure.
 
With an army as small as ours it just seems in effecient to maintain so many unique (or near unique) structures when every time we deploy we end up mixing and matching anyway.  At the moment we often convert Light Inf to Mech Wheeled or Motorised and then turn around and send our Mech Inf off some where as Light Infantry.  Sort of flies in the face of training as you intend to fight.
 
Quote    Reply

Raven22       11/6/2008 6:50:13 AM

That 11 ACR organisation is no different to a normal brigade anyway - remembering a US squadron is an Australian regiment/battalion, the 11 ACR is simply a short brigade with a tank regiment and an infantry battalion.

I have read something more recently that they had or were about to begin altering the structure of their Regiments and Battalions to better reflect the structure of the deployed battle groups so troops at home could train as they fight and were completely familiar with the operational structure.

I think you'll find the Brits were only altering the structure of their brigades, not their regiments or battalions. The Brits (like us) want to make all their brigades the same (homogenised) so that each brigade is self sufficient and can send a battlegroup consisting of any capability they like on ops, and more importantly independently train for that in peacetime. In barracks the brigade will still consist of seperate tank regiments, armoured infantry battalions and light infantry battalions.

With an army as small as ours it just seems in effecient to maintain so many unique (or near unique) structures when every time we deploy we end up mixing and matching anyway. At the moment we often convert Light Inf to Mech Wheeled or Motorised and then turn around and send our Mech Inf off some where as Light Infantry. Sort of flies in the face of training as you intend to fight.

It's just the opposite. It only makes sense to permenently battlegroup units below brigade level if that is the way you are always going to fight. It made perfect sense on the Fulda gap during the cold war for instance - both US and British units in Germany were generally permanently battlegrouped in barracks the way they were expected to fight the Soviet army. With a NTM of 12 h, it couldn;t be any other way. When US units were rotated back to the USA they went back to their normal organisation of seperate tank and infantry battalions.

Australia on the other hand can't afford to have units permantly battlegrouped like that because every single operation or contingency we face will likely need different capabilities and hence different force structures. For instance, it makes no sense to to permanenty battlegroup tanks and infantry into the same regiment if on ops the infantry will be required to man Bushmasters and be integrated into a cavalry battlegroup. That is why each brigade should be identical - so they can independently train in whatever combined arms units they require at the time, and therefore rotate through ops much easier.

 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       11/6/2008 7:16:37 AM
Ok fair call, it has been a few years since I have been anywhere near a reg RAAC or RAINF unit so my knowledge is anything but leading edge.  I sometimes regret not taking one of the offers to transfer over during the late 90's.
 
It almost sounds like we would be better off if the RAINF concentrated on light infantry and the RAAC provided tailored CAV to support them as required for the mission at hand.  i.e. A Medium CAV Regiment with a Rec Sqn, a Dragoon Sqn (specialist mech inf) and an APC Sqn (Btn lift) in each Brigade and maybe a specialised Heavy Regt / Bde (MBT's and AIFV's) and maybe a tailored Amphibious Regt (to work with the LHD's).
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Raven   11/6/2008 8:48:00 AM

I think you'll find the Brits were only altering the structure of their brigades, not their regiments or battalions. The Brits (like us) want to make all their brigades the same (homogenised) so that each brigade is self sufficient and can send a battlegroup consisting of any capability they like on ops, and more importantly independently train for that in peacetime. In barracks the brigade will still consist of seperate tank regiments, armoured infantry battalions and light infantry battalions.

I can see some benefits in that model so long as we were on operations where the heavy and light forces operating together at brigade level were complementary. Vietnam was an example of where this was the case, with Australian commanders having the option of using helibourne light forces and/or mechanised forces where they were best suited in that countrie's very variable terrain. Timor would have been the same had we faced an escalated campaign by the milita or TNI.
 
However the trade off is that where the terrain suits one particular type of force (e.g. all mechanised or all light infantry) then they would have had less or no opportunity to train in that manner. For example in the Falklands the Marines and Para's conducted a successful Brigade plus level light infantry operation because they were used to conducting large operations in that manner. In contrast in the Gulf Wars the Brits and Americans operated in  large mechanised formations together. I think it is especially important that we are able to field a brigade-level mechanised force which can quickly defeat a larger light force, as I believe that this is the only way that we can offset the numbers disadvantage that we face in our region.
 
So the question is how we best structure the Army to do both of these things? Do we create the "box of tricks" brigades that you are suggesting, and make sure that all mechanised and all light infantry units get together with similar units once a year to practice brigade level ops? Alternatively would it be better to  leave the Brigades the way they are and ensure that they meet with units of a different type once a year for combined arms training?
 
Quote    Reply

Raven22       11/6/2008 9:20:47 AM

The reason for the push for more homogenised brigades is largely due to the requirement to rotate current operational commitments, while still maintaining higher lever training outcomes for the non deployed forces. If it were peacetime for real, with no ongoing commitments, then a variety of different brigades like we have now would be fine. We could have a mech bde, mot bde and light bde all training for that speciality, so we have a bde suited to pretty much any contingency.

However as it stands we have, and will likely continue to have, to mount around a third of our forces overseas on current ops. As such, having each brigade with different capabilities is unworkable. For instance, if we want to deploy mech inf it has to come from 1 bde. Therefore, even if 3 or 7 bde is mounting the op, 1 bde is stripped of its mech capability and therefore can't train for it. Ditto for cav - if 3 bde needs cav it has to strip it from either 1 or 7 bde - therefore that other bde will have no high-readiness cav assets to train with. Thats what we have now - in order to rotate current ops we have to take capabilities from all over the country, meaning no one bde can really do proper training because they never have all their assets. For instance, we currently have zero mech warfighting capability in the army - all one bde inf and high readiness cav is deployed. There is currently no more than about 2 pls of mech inf and 3 tank tps in the whole country.

That's where homogenised bdes comes in - any one bde can mount all ops at once, while the other bdes can continue to train to a level where they actually maintain capability in core warfighting skills. This is also why the 8 month rotation was brought in - after a bde finishes its rotation of ops, they can have a solid years worth of training before concentrating on the next rotation. Of course it is never going to be perfect - a bde at least might have to borrow vehicles if not actual personnel from other bdes, but it is a much more sustainable model.

That's also what the whole 'adaptive army' thing is a about too - making mounting and rotating operations much easier for the bdes.

 
Quote    Reply

Archer 155mm       11/7/2008 3:48:36 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Archer 155mm       11/7/2008 3:51:42 AM
Going back to the original question, France is planning to operate their LeClercs with an all wheeled force of APC/IFVs.
LeClercs and VBCIs will operate as teams. They have no plan to buy a new tracked IFV.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Raven   11/7/2008 6:06:09 AM


The reason for the push for more homogenised brigades is largely due to the requirement to rotate current operational commitments, while still maintaining higher lever training outcomes for the non deployed forces. If it were peacetime for real, with no ongoing commitments, then a variety of different brigades like we have now would be fine. We could have a mech bde, mot bde and light bde all training for that speciality, so we have a bde suited to pretty much any contingency.

However as it stands we have, and will likely continue to have, to mount around a third of our forces overseas on current ops. As such, having each brigade with different capabilities is unworkable. For instance, if we want to deploy mech inf it has to come from 1 bde. Therefore, even if 3 or 7 bde is mounting the op, 1 bde is stripped of its mech capability and therefore can't train for it. Ditto for cav - if 3 bde needs cav it has to strip it from either 1 or 7 bde - therefore that other bde will have no high-readiness cav assets to train with. Thats what we have now - in order to rotate current ops we have to take capabilities from all over the country, meaning no one bde can really do proper training because they never have all their assets. For instance, we currently have zero mech warfighting capability in the army - all one bde inf and high readiness cav is deployed. There is currently no more than about 2 pls of mech inf and 3 tank tps in the whole country.

That's where homogenised bdes comes in - any one bde can mount all ops at once, while the other bdes can continue to train to a level where they actually maintain capability in core warfighting skills. This is also why the 8 month rotation was brought in - after a bde finishes its rotation of ops, they can have a solid years worth of training before concentrating on the next rotation. Of course it is never going to be perfect - a bde at least might have to borrow vehicles if not actual personnel from other bdes, but it is a much more sustainable model.

That's also what the whole 'adaptive army' thing is a about too - making mounting and rotating operations much easier for the bdes.


It seems to me that the problem one of insufficient numbers of units for the demands that we are placing on the Army than any organisational issue. To use your example of 1 Bde mechanised infantry we only have two mech infantry battalions. That means that we can't maintain 3 identical brigades without raising another mech infantry unit and if most of our mech has to be deployed then they can't train at home. I don't see how having homogenised brigades is going to change that reality.
 
BTW, my understanding is that there is only 1 platoon of 5 RAR deployed in the Mech role at the moment in Timor. I presume that the other mech troops are deployed as light or motorised infantry? Also, where are the tankers being deployed because it certainly isn't with their vehicles. Are they filling in the Cav units?
 
Quote    Reply

Raven22       11/7/2008 8:07:25 AM
BTW, my understanding is that there is only 1 platoon of 5 RAR deployed in the Mech role at the moment in Timor. I presume that the other mech troops are deployed as light or motorised infantry? Also, where are the tankers being deployed because it certainly isn't with their vehicles. Are they filling in the Cav units?

5RAR is manning the TLBG and SECDET XIV, two companies of 7RAR are manning the MRTF while one just got back from SECDET XIII. There's enough diggers left to man a company or so, but the majority of soldiers aren't mech qualled. 1 Armd Regt, apart from general personnel shortages, is manning the Bushmasters of the SOTG.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       11/7/2008 6:54:25 PM

BTW, my understanding is that there is only 1 platoon of 5 RAR deployed in the Mech role at the moment in Timor. I presume that the other mech troops are deployed as light or motorised infantry? Also, where are the tankers being deployed because it certainly isn't with their vehicles. Are they filling in the Cav units?



5RAR is manning the TLBG and SECDET XIV, two companies of 7RAR are manning the MRTF while one just got back from SECDET XIII. There's enough diggers left to man a company or so, but the majority of soldiers aren't mech qualled. 1 Armd Regt, apart from general personnel shortages, is manning the Bushmasters of the SOTG.


Ta. At least the tankers are getting a trip overseas then even if it is only in Bushies.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics