"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"The CO" wrote in message
...

lots of interspersed snippage to stop the message getting too big

http://www.tenix.com/Main.asp?ID=437

The M113 upgrades resistance to SA is classified Secret.

"Upgraded vehicles will have base level protection enhanced by external
appliqué armour and spall curtains for increased vehicle and crew
protection"
(from the tenix site you provided the link to.)
So it's reasonable to assume it will be better than the current M113.
Well, that's a positive.

The role of motorised forces is not to ride the truck into combat.

No, not suggesting they were going to do that at all.

The same ambush problem applies to Helos and SAMs, ASLAVS and RPGs etc
nothing is risk free.

Granted. But if you are going to move bodies around, better to do it in
something hardened
if you are likely to be subject to such assaults in rear areas, and
recent events in Iraq suggest
that this tactic is likely to be employed by any opposition.

Try FSBs Coral and Balmoral in Vietnam for examples of where heavy
armour is
of great value in light ops (Lex Mcaulays book covers it).

Ok, I'll do that.

That of course depends on the relative ground pressure of the vehicle,
not
the overall weight of the vehicle.

It's a function of vehicle weight and footprint area yes.

An MBT with wide tracks is likely to remain mobile over soft ground
after a
Light Vehicle with thin tracks.

Wheeled Veh, soft ground, you could be looking at real problems.

For example, an M113 has a ground pressure of aprox 8.6 PSI,

a Leopard 1 has a ground pressure of aprox 12.8 PSI,

An LAV has a ground pressure of aprox 40 (forty) PSI...

Is that per sq (metre/foot/whatever) of footprint?
Bear in mind that in a tyred vehicle like ASLAV you can reduce that
pressure
a whole bunch just by deflating the tyres somewhat.

Also, in Vietnam, it was found that Centurions could push through
terrain
that M113s could not.

True enough, I guess it gets back to the terrain involved at least in
part.

Nothing is forever, but given that 3RAR is a Para Bn, nothing is to be
gained by moving them to Bris, if the couple of hours flight time ever
seems
to be a real concern they can be staged to Bris for an operation.

Ok, would it *perhaps* be more realistic to base them up there in the
type of
country they would be *more likely* to fight in during a conflict and
shift the
training area? I see no reason to relocate the whole of RAAF Richmond,
a
forward deployment to the AO for an ex or training cycle should not
stretch
RAAF resources overmuch. The P3's have operated in this manner for
years.
I can't imagine it would be real hard to find a suitable DZ in
Queensland, and it
would have the advantage of terrain familiarisation. That said, I won't
disagree
that it would be dead easy or cost free, the value of the reloc would
have to be
weighed tac/training advantages v increased logistic and operational
costs.

Thats the point of Bushmaster.

But is it the answer? Or just a cheap expedient?

It is a protected truck, the simple fact is we can't afford to put all
our
troops in AFVs,

I'm not sure I can agree with that. It's always a question of
cost v survivability, but in view of the (relatively) small size
of the army, it might be desirable to give it all the protection
that we can. IF that means ASLAV's all round, well, defence
spending and presumably tax might need to increase to do so.
The force multiplication value of light armoured transport for your
troops cannot be discounted, particularly if the enemy is not as well
equipped.

if the choice is move them fast and then operate as leg inf
or do without a few more Bns, then Bushmaster is the answer.

I see your point, however I'm not sure I can agree. Casualties are
the new 'centre of gravity' to terrorist/insurgent combatants. The
situation in Iraq seems to suggest that they have adopted an approach
of knocking off just one or two yanks a day until the bill gets too high
and the folks at home scream for their boys and girls to be pulled out.
In 1944 it was acceptable to take a some thousands of casualties in an
op
like that, these days, it's not politically acceptable it seems and even
small
numbers of casualties make the news at home and increase pressure on a
govt to stop the attrition by pulling back.
Faced with a hostile invader on our soil, I don't think that applies, as
I think
we (as a nation) would do 'whatever it takes' to kick them out, but on a
deployment to, say, Java, there might not be such a philosophical
attitude.

This *must* include the ability to *logistically*
support a more highly mobile fielded force
as well. This is an even bigger can of worms..

Agreed.

The Alice-Darwin rail link is going to help a bit (or even a lot)
but
supporting a sizeable
force in the bush in far north is arguably harder than supporting
one at
some OS locs.

Yes, fortunately it works both ways.

True enough. I personally feel any invader is sitting on the sharp end
of
the stick, it would be *very* difficult to do.

Given that the Tiger will carry Hellfire II it seems quite capable of
handling any armour we are likely to encounter.

Lockheed Martin, Eurocopter Ink Contract to Integrate Hellfire II
Missile on
Tigre Attack Helo

snip

Ok, on that basis, assuming it's otherwise capable, I'd probably be
happy with that.

Not disputed, but there are some jobs that nothing else can do,
particularly when everything is
wet and soggy and the clouds are almost dragging on the ground.

Keep in mind that the conditions you cite apply to both sides of a
conflict,

Sure.

in many cases you would be better off just leaving an enemy to rot in
the
wet season, interdict his supplys and mop up the remains come the dry.

I would imagine that containment combined with that would do so *in
time*
though I'm less certain that the people of the area (what there are of
them)
and the population in general would be happy to wait them out. They'd
expect
and I feel strongly that the political masters would order, the defence
force to
jump in and ferret them out rather sharpish. Again, a political
direction may be
the deciding factor, when from a purely tactical viewpoint, your
scenario would
probably work well enough.

That will be tough, a great many of them don't want to be
Infantry.

Quite. And there is a need for specialists. You might need trained
replacements in
a hurry, that's why it's called a 'reserve'.
That said, it's not unreasonable that the most pressing need would
be
for infantry,
so the balance should favour that corp.

But they can't get enough to sign up for Ares Inf now, how do you
propose
fixing it?

Never said it was going to be easy. There is a genuine problem with the
ARES
retention levels these days. One issue I've noted is that a number of
recruits go to Pucka for basic
and are then supposed to RTU. However a significant number wind up
going into
the Regs instead. I'm not sure what the solution is, or even if there
*is* a solution.
One thing is that it's quite hard for someone who's employed to get the
time off to
go and do their basic. When it was the weekends and a couple weeks a
year it
was at least possible, but the current system makes it a *lot* harder to
get enough time off.

Obviously a major local change would require something of a rethink,

Concur.

that is one reason to keep cadres of units such as Armour - our
friends
could be tied up in Korea, Iraq, etc when we need help or they could
be in
an election cycle and unwilling to help (see Clinton/E.Timor).

It would be plausible that any enemy might take this into account.
OTOH I suspect we would get considerable priority in such an event, so
it may not necessarily follow that we can't get help when we need it.

The problem is that having the media leap on every single rape case
and
every single assault, for years, playing on the 'furriners misbehaving
here'
angle is not good in the long term.

No argument.

Another good reason for a decent, well balanced military - it raises
the bar
significantly as to what constitutes a credible threat.

Yes.


The CO